Support NeoGAF

[Aurora]

The political influence religion still holds in the twenty-first century appalls me.

 

[speculawyer]

My big problem with Dawkins is that he really isn't very well informed about history or the social sciences in general but he wants to get the credit for his awkward historical arguments anyway. .

I never like the "you don't know enough about theology" argument . . . it is like saying "you don't know enough about Superman and Spider-man, so you can't call them fiction." The details of theological history are not relevant when you wish to make a scientific valuation on whether a god is likely to exist or not.

He also doesn't really seem to have any real idea that there are religions beyond the Abrahamic Big Three -- I always find it perplexing when people argue against the existence of God inside a framework that only encompasses a limited selection of what people mean by that term --

Of course he knows about other religions . . . but what difference do they make to the argument? The fact that there are many more religions is something that actually strengthens his viewpoint, not weakens it. All these different religions have conflicting dogma and teachings, so they can't all be true. So obviously most of them are false. Thus, this proves that we humans have the ability to create false religions and get millions of people to believe in them. That fact is pretty damning against all religions.

Presumably if he has strategic goals that originate from his stances (such as opposing the teaching of Creationism and ID) and he has chosen to use his fame as a lever to help push those strategic goals (I think it's hard to argue that this is false), there are more and less tactical ways to do so. He seems to have decided that the most effective way for him to do that is to be kind of an asshole, so... I guess the question is whether that is indeed the most effective approach or not. :lol

Well, I think different techniques are effective for different people. So why not have people out there using all sorts of different techniques. Dawkins freely admits that his viewpoints are often counter-productive for those people fighting against ID.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn was a much, much better "can't prove it doesn't exist" argument prop. The FSM is just the commercialized bullshit version of the IPU because someone realized they could make it into a carfish.

No . . . the FSM had a very non commercial origin. It originated from the satrical ratings of some grad student in his open letter to a Kansas school board.

But it became an internet meme that caught on. So Dawkins' use of FSM probably helped popularize it but Dawkins didn't create it.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Becoming non-religious is a slow, sad spiral into the debilitating mind frame that there is no point to anything.

Why follow rules?
Why have kids?
Why progress knowledge?
Why fuss over aesthetics?
What is one life among billions?

Ultimately, everyone is going to be eaten by maggots.

lol, I really hope you're joking.

 

[KevinCow]

Becoming non-religious is a slow, sad spiral into the debilitating mind frame that there is no point to anything.

Why follow rules?
Why have kids?
Why progress knowledge?
Why fuss over aesthetics?
What is one life among billions?

Ultimately, everyone is going to be eaten by maggots.

And when you think about these questions and come up with your own answers to them, you can, in the end, have a more fulfilling life than doing everything "Because God said so."

 

[Davey Cakes]

What's keeping you?

Society makes me feel bad for saying I'm non-religious. My family does as well, since most of them are staunch Republicans who also happen to be Catholic.

Of course, my brother and I actually have some sense. I have nothing against using religion as general life guidance, but I see no reason to conform to one set of beliefs. I generally choose to believe what I want to believe. I many ways, I've created my own self-religion.

Politically, I'm a moderate. Religiously, I'm most non-religious, though I do believe in a superior being of some kind. It's just that, I see no need to put so much time and energy into choosing sides for matters like these. I respect others for what they believe in, and then I move on.

 

[speculawyer]

The political influence religion still holds in the twenty-first century appalls me.

Indeed. I know I'll be criticized for saying it, but religion is clearly one of the reasons why democracy has such a hard time taking root in the mid-east and south-Asia. Just about all the political parties in Iraq are religious-sect-affiliated parties. The few secular parties that existed pretty much all got trounced.

 

[Aurora]

The point of life is that it's pointless. It is for the individual to give his or her life purpose. Following a book like a sheep is a waste of life in my opinion.

Indeed. I know I'll be criticized for saying it, but religion is clearly one of the reasons why democracy has such a hard time taking root in the mid-east and south-Asia. Just about all the political parties in Iraq are religious-sect-affiliated parties. The few secular parties that existed pretty much all got trounced.

I think that that is undeniable. There is clear correlation between countries becoming more secular and also granting more rights and liberties to its citizens - thus creating a more "civilised" political environment.

 

[Stoney Mason]

It isn't missing the point at all. It's consciously addressing the very thing that makes Dawkins (and atheism by popular association, like or or not) so needlessly repellent to so many people. No matter how many times you say "he isn't the face of atheism", that won't make it true. He IS to a great many people due to his fame and his outspoken nature, and he will continue to be perceived as such.

And give Scientology a few hundred years to iron out all the tacky bullshit. Who knows? It could definitely become less laughable (and dangerous). But let's not pretend that a very poorly-written, graceless creation story scribbled out by a hack scifi writer in a explicit attempt to create a religion for profit (something that is widely known and which colors most popular perceptions of Scientology) is directly comparable to the beauty of old, well-polished creation myths.

He isn't the face of atheism. Unless we want to start picking and choosing whoever we don't personally dislike for whatever various reason as the face of any intellectual concept and not actually debate the merits of said concept instead of whether somebody is especially friendly or not. He is not an elected official. He is not appointed by some religious body to head up a congregation and he has no officially delegated responsibilities. He is an individual who writes books, has a blog and goes around debating people. Atheists have a bad rap in this country because they stand in perceived opposition to religion in a relatively religious country. It has nothing to do with Dawkins. The vast bulk of people in this country have never even heard of Dawkins or are familiar with the positions of most famous atheists.

And Yes. For me real religion is just as absurd as scientology and in fact has more actual power and influence. Scientology doesn't effect me. I do live in the South however where depending on where I live people may be taught a bastardized version of science or certain morality laws are in place due to religious moral holdovers.

I don't defend the absurdity of scientology but I also don't blow it up to be some monstrously powerful secret cabal that is widespread in our society like traditional religion.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

Many who call themselves religious are not religious at all. All philosophers and religious leaders/figures have understood that only a few can ever know the "infinite." The Buddha, for example, almost ended his teachings before they even began, knowing that only a very, very few would be awakened in truth and understanding. He persisted nevertheless.

So I think this statistic is a lot larger.

That said, as I've said before, I think we all eventually reach a stage where we want more. And as I've learned from my experiences and teachings, achieving that requires an authentic spiritual life. This is a life that is not necessarily religious, at least in the sense that it is typically understood.

 

[Funky Papa]

Becoming non-religious is a slow, sad spiral into the debilitating mind frame that there is no point to anything.

Why follow rules?
Why have kids?
Why progress knowledge?
Why fuss over aesthetics?
What is one life among billions?

Ultimately, everyone is going to be eaten by maggots.

Fatuous only begins to describe your reasoning. And I am being incredibly liberal with the use of the word "reasoning".

If you are going to label us as mentally weak if not socially dangerous, at least have the decency of investigating a little about atheism and its background. You may discover that plenty of us embraced it not only on logical grounds, but also on moral ones. Excuse me if I don't believe in a deity that gets a chubby at the prospect of raping teenagers or resorting to mass murder to demonstrate his godness.

 

[avaya]

Dawkins and Hitchens may be dicks, but any religious establishment that spans centuries of child molestation, torture and murder is just an asshole, and we need dicks to fuck assholes so pussies like us don't get shat on.

:lol

 

[speculawyer]

Becoming non-religious is a slow, sad spiral into the debilitating mind frame that there is no point to anything.

Why follow rules?
Why have kids?
Why progress knowledge?
Why fuss over aesthetics?
What is one life among billions?

Ultimately, everyone is going to be eaten by maggots.

I always find it quite creepy when I hear this argument. Basically, this person seems to be saying "If I decide my god is not real, then I will start stealing, raping and murdering . . . because why not?" If that is really what you think, then by all means, keep believing in your god. :lol

But you seem to be a greyhound that needs a mechanical bunny to chase around the track. And that's fine I guess. But the the mechanical bunny isn't real. And when a dog realizes that, their life doesn't have to end. (Although sadly, sometimes these dogs are killed since they won't run any more . . . but I'm digressing.)


But that is not the way you have to view things . . . look at this way . . . you are free to make up your own reasons for doing good things. It makes others happy. It makes you happy.

 

[cryptic]

Fatuous only begins to describe your reasoning. And I am being incredibly liberal with the use of the word "reasoning".

If you are going to label us as mentally weak if not socially dangerous, at least have the decency of investigating a little about atheism and its background. You may discover that plenty of us embraced it not only on logical grounds, but also on moral ones. Excuse me if I don't believe in a deity that gets a chubby at the prospect of raping teenagers or resorting to mass murder to demonstrate his godness.

I don't believe in god either though.

But you seem to be a greyhound that needs a mechanical bunny to chase around the track. And that's fine I guess. But the the mechanical bunny isn't real. And when a dog realizes that, their life doesn't have to end. (Although sadly, sometimes these dogs are killed since they won't run any more . . . but I'm digressing.)

I'm not familiar with how the dog races work but the dog's life has to end anyway even if he does realize the bunny's not real, right?

I just have trouble coping with dying and being nothing, I'd like to find some way to cope with that and haven't so far and wanted some help so I posted among the only people that I know who are "learned" in the matter. I beat around the bush because I feel like a puss for having this concern.

 

[GDGF]

But you seem to be a greyhound that needs a mechanical bunny to chase around the track. And that's fine I guess. But the the mechanical bunny isn't real. And when a dog realizes that, their life doesn't have to end. (Although sadly, sometimes these dogs are killed since they won't run any more . . . but I'm digressing.)

That was an awesome analogy and I do believe I'm going to use it.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Society makes me feel bad for saying I'm non-religious. My family does as well, since most of them are staunch Republicans who also happen to be Catholic.

The same thing can be said about homosexuality, but it's because gay people brave coming out of the closet that we have, as limited as they are, gay rights.

 

[charlequin]

But he could be a lot worse, too. At least he's not Christopher Hitchens.

Honestly, I always kind of forget that there are people who dislike Hitch for being a loudmouth atheist in addition to the people who dislike him for turning into a prickass reactionary neocon warhawk because he got all afeared of 9/11.

Becoming non-religious is a slow, sad spiral into the debilitating mind frame that there is no point to anything.

It really doesn't have to be. There are plenty of non-theistic yet non-nihilistic philosophies to choose from.

I never like the "you don't know enough about theology" argument . . .

Er... do you see the word "theology" anywhere in my post?

Anyone who wants can criticize a religion's stated worldview without having studied it; that's just the price you pay for having an organization with a controversial, publically-stated philosophy of existence. I have no argument with that.

My problem is that Dawkins fudges the numbers on history to make religion look objectively worse than it is, and tries to pull the kind of pass-the-buck logical fallacies where "religion" gets to take monolithic responsibility for foolishness and evil committed under various religious banners (but atheism gets off scott-free for its own share of atrocities). It's silly, it's bad history, and it's not even really relevant to his points -- it's certainly not necessary for religion to be monolithically destructive and evil to prefer atheism on rationalist grounds.

The fact that there are many more religions is something that actually strengthens his viewpoint, not weakens it.

This is hardly a particularly rigorous intellectual argument. :lol It's about equivalent to the kinds of ridiculous nonsense people cook up where you can "prove" evolution isn't "real" because scientists don't all agree about how it works.

A rigorous case that'll be convincing to a hardline rationalist isn't hard to construct, but if it's actually rigorous it can't take shortcuts like assuming that "religion" always includes things like "an omnipotent god" or "reverence for 'holy' books" or anything else that's relatively specific to Western Christianity and Islam.

 

[Fusebox]

My problem is that Dawkins fudges the numbers on history to make religion look objectively worse than it is

What 'numbers' did he state, and what was the true figure?

 

[Brannon]

bingo

they need to give religion some sex appeal, some lasers, some money, some SCHPAW

They need.... Fuck Buddy Jesus in a Tron outfit...

 

[TheGrayGhost]

Anyone who wants can criticize a religion's stated worldview without having studied it; that's just the price you pay for having an organization with a controversial, publically-stated philosophy of existence. I have no argument with that.

My problem is that Dawkins fudges the numbers on history to make religion look objectively worse than it is, and tries to pull the kind of pass-the-buck logical fallacies where "religion" gets to take monolithic responsibility for foolishness and evil committed under various religious banners (but atheism gets off scott-free for its own share of atrocities). It's silly, it's bad history, and it's not even really relevant to his points -- it's certainly not necessary for religion to be monolithically destructive and evil to prefer atheism on rationalist grounds.

Agreed. There needs to be a lot more discrimination and a lot less generalization.

 

[Aurora]

My problem is that Dawkins fudges the numbers on history to make religion look objectively worse than it is, and tries to pull the kind of pass-the-buck logical fallacies where "religion" gets to take monolithic responsibility for foolishness and evil committed under various religious banners (but atheism gets off scott-free for its own share of atrocities).

Name a single one.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Name a single one.

Here come Hitler and Stalin...

 

[Funky Papa]

Here come Hitler and Stalin...

Sounds like the start of a joke.

 

[Aurora]

Here come Hitler and Stalin...

I really hope so, that way I can ridicule him into oblivion.

 

[Shockgamer]

Here come Hitler and Stalin...

Something about those mustaches...

 

[JayDubya]

Well yeah.

If we're going to play the indirect blame game, states that mandated atheism have a nice big death toll, usually inflicted on their own people.

Of course, this isn't really a reasonable way of assessing anything meaningful at all.

 

[Forceatowulf]

It was inevitable really. I'm a Christian and have been my entire life and even I know religion is becoming a joke. It's not the religion it's self but it's followers. The majority of them are assholes/hypocrites and it completely turns people off.

I'm glad this is happening though, the way I see it the less religious people there are the better off society will be. There are just too many batshit insane religious people in the world and they've become like a virus.

Again, I'm a Christian and believe I will remain one till the day I die because I've seen the good side of it and believe it can be a wonderful thing, but at the same time I completely understand why religion it's self is dwindling here in the States.

 

[Ela Hadrun]

Here come Hitler and Stalin...

Or China. I guess this is why you guys support Dawkins, because you don't know your history either.

People do bad shit. Sometimes those people subscribe to religious beliefs. But taking the religious beliefs out of the picture doesn't keep them from doing bad shit.

 

[KHarvey16]

Or China. I guess this is why you guys support Dawkins, because you don't know your history either.

Er, history?

 

[Fusebox]

Any country that worships the State in place of religion is not an 'atheist' country. They've just swapped their man-made God for a man whom they treat like God.

I guess this is why you guys support Dawkins, because you don't know your history either.

???

 

[Stoney Mason]

Or China. I guess this is why you guys support Dawkins, because you don't know your history either.

People do bad shit. Sometimes those people subscribe to religious beliefs. But taking the religious beliefs out of the picture doesn't keep them from doing bad shit.

lol for someone who doesn't like Dawkins you are the one making an awful lot of presumptions about what I specifically believe or know.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Any country that worships the State in place of religion is not an 'atheist' country. They've just swapped their man-made God for a man whom they treat like God.

???

I gotta ask, and I'm being serious. Is a "real atheist" country even possible? And I mean on a grand scale, not some small isolated country. It always seemed to me to be human nature that people praise something, be it God or money or an idol of theirs, or even a sports team. Hell, I know many won't consider it "real atheism", but there honestly are people that are atheists and turn their lack of a belief system into a "belief system". People have the ability to become fanatical about anything, I mean the quest for money and power has probably led to more death than anything else.

 

[Ela Hadrun]

Any country that worships the State in place of religion is not an 'atheist' country. They've just swapped their man-made God for a man whom they treat like God.

???

W-w-w-wait, so are you arguing that shooting a bunch of Buddhist monks during the Cultural Revolution because superstition is detrimental to social progress is....Idolatry??? :lol :lol :lol

I see so when a madman commits crimes in the name of religion then it's the religion's fault, but when a madman commits a crime in the name of eradicating religion it's the man's fault.

And why do you even have that gif of Hitler? Only your side even brought Hitler up, not me and Charlequin.

Charlequin, why did we even get into this thread? We must be feeling masochistic today.

Anyway, what I'm for is religious freedom. That's where everyone is free to express their own belief and identity however they like, and no belief system is favored by the state. In that vein, this rising statistic is very very good news.

The thing I dislike about Dawkins is that he doesn't think other people who believe differently than he does are really his intellectual equals. And theists with that attitude piss me off more, probably.

 

[Fusebox]

W-w-w-wait, so are you arguing that shooting a bunch of Buddhist monks during the Cultural Revolution because superstition is detrimental to social progress is....Idolatry??? :lol :lol :lol

C-c-c-can you quote the part where I said that?

R-r-r-regardless, can you honestly not see that organised religion was a threat to Maos control over the country? :lol :lol :lol

 

[KHarvey16]

I see so when a madman commits crimes in the name of religion then it's the religion's fault, but when a madman commits a crime in the name of eradicating religion it's the mand's fault.

Atheism is absolutely nothing more than the lack of belief in a god. Eradicating religion is NOT a "tenant" of atheism. There are none.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I gotta ask, and I'm being serious. Is a "real atheist" country even possible? And I mean on a grand scale, not some small isolated country. It always seemed to me to be human nature that people praise something, be it God or money or an idol of theirs, or even a sports team. Hell, I know many won't consider it "real atheism", but there honestly are people that are atheists and turn their lack of a belief system into a "belief system". People have the ability to become fanatical about anything, I mean the quest for money and power has probably led to more death than anything else.

Societies that move toward secularism are as close as we will get or need to get. Forcing the abandonment of a religious aspect in society to gain extreme authoritarian powers though isn't atheism or rule by atheism.

 

[Stoney Mason]

The thing I dislike about Dawkins is that he doesn't think other people who believe differently than he does are really his intellectual equals. And theists with that attitude piss me off more, probably.

By the way are you are any of the people who dislike Dawkins ever going to post some quotes or actual things in context rather than making blanket generalizations. I agree and disagree with Dawkins on some things and can point to a specific written example to have an actual discussion on both sides. This would be far more helpful than your currently unsupported (evidence wise) accusations.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Societies that move toward secularism are as close as we will get or need to get. Forcing the abandonment of a religious aspect in society to gain extreme authoritarian powers though isn't atheism or rule by atheism.

So, true atheism isn't possible?

 

[soul creator]

atheism gets off "scott-free", precisely because it, like non-belief in thousands of other fictional beings isn't a philosophy or worldview in and of itself, and doesn't claim to dictate exactly how you should behave. It's an answer to one specific question, the existence of a god. Stalin and Mao probably didn't believe in comic book heroes either, should we therefore say that their lack of belief in them was any sort of direct motivation for their actions? Or did their actions have more to do with what they did believe in, namely totalitarian dictatorships? (essentially replacing "god" with themselves)

Most religions do actually claim "this is what you should do", therefore I would say it's fair game to "blame" it when something negative is done as a result of it. Just like it's perfectly possible to criticize the Republican party platform if their policies are messed up. God, and the popular holy texts it supposedly inspired don't just sit back and say "it's cool, just believe what you want, I want you to find things out on your own, everyone finds their own way, I'll be in the afterlife chilling". It wanted you to do actions XYZ. Why? Well, because that's what humans are supposed to do, follow god. I mean, the word "worship" is used for a reason, right? He is a "jealous god", no?

Of course, the typical response to this is "well all religion isn't Christianity and Islam so stop speaking as if that's the majority!" Well...Christianity and Islam comprise the majority of religious belief in our society, and throughout the world, and are generally the ones that actively want to convert people, so it shouldn't be a surprise if that gets the majority of criticism. And that's what people generally mean when they're critical of "religion". Just like how Bush and Reagan will get the vast majority of criticism of Republican policy, because they're the ones that were specifically elected to represent the party, and got the vast majority of votes. Sure, it'd be nice if Bahai and Unitarians were the dominant religions, and if moderate Republicans were dominant in Washington. But until that day comes...

Of course, someone will likely say that "well, not all Christians and Muslims are the same!"

And then I'd say "that is true as well, which is what you'd expect from a cultural organization that has nothing to do with some all powerful invisible god handing down rules to follow".

And then you'd say "well, not all Christians and Muslims literally believe some invisible god handed down rules for us to follow, that's just metaphor and fables used to teach moral lessons!"

And then I'd say "well then why call it a religion, if you're just gonna deny the primary reason for it being a religion? At that point, what makes religion special in comparison to the thousands of other metaphors and fables and stories we observe?"

It's not a coincidence that the more "progressive" religions (and religious people) are generally the ones which chalk up more and more of religious texts to "metaphor". It's great that they're doing so, and I obviously prefer when this happens, but at the end of the day, they're still picking and choosing what parts they like and what parts they don't like, and their isn't really some sort of standard where one can say "God creating woman from a man's rib? Nah, that's crazy. Invisible dude who can create universes and telepathically communicate with me, and everyone else in the world at the same time? I totally believe that!" As a practical matter, I have no problem with people who do that, since we probably agree on 99% of things anyway. But it's still just as irrational as the "crazy" right-wingers. It just happens to be a nicer form of irrationality.

And not to say I'm some perfect paragon of rationality and reason, but my personal irrational quirks aren't institutionalized and encouraged in a ancient religion with billions of followers.

 

[Fusebox]

So, true atheism isn't possible?

Interesting one Soulplaya, I'd hope that any atheist country would (or should) still be tolerant of other religious beliefs, so a truly atheist country might be hard to achieve without turning into a bunch of God-banning, Church-burning fundy's.

I'd say a Unitarian Universalist state would be as close as I'd like to get to an atheist country.

 

[Aurora]

People do bad shit. Sometimes those people subscribe to religious beliefs. But taking the religious beliefs out of the picture doesn't keep them from doing bad shit.

Well obviously. If a leader is evil, he will commit evil regardless of religious views. However:

Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion.

Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion; none in the name of atheism.

 

[Stoney Mason]

So, true atheism isn't possible?

Well I don't think atheism as an intellectual concept works like a Jewish state where we up and move and form a nation. And not all non-believers fall into the grouping of atheist. Personally while I identify as an atheist it's always been a rather moot point with me outside of intellectual discussion and debate. Secularism is the only real battle worth fighting imo.

 

[itsinmyveins]

That's great, but not relevant. If I believed, in my heart of hearts, that my penis shot marshmallow cream that cured AIDS, it wouldn't obligate you to pretend I wasn't being ridiculous in the event we had a discussion on it.

Yes, it's very relevant if you want to understand and have a discussion about it. It wouldn't obligate me to anything, but I haven't said that it would either.

 

[Lich_King]

Even in death we still win!

 

[KHarvey16]

What an atheistic country is needs more explanation. Is it simply secular? Does it forbid belief in god?

 

[JayDubya]

I'd say a Unitarian Universalist state would be as close as I'd like to get to an atheist country.

That would still be a state religion.

 

[Buttchin]

I don't really understand it either. Hitchens. Sure. He's an ass. Dawkins is blunt but he is rarely an asshole in any real sense of that word to me.

i agree

*** buttchin is listening to "i'm not jesus" by apocalyptica as he peruses this thread... seems fitting

 

[itsinmyveins]

Why would people "worship" the state, by the way?

 

[ChoklitReign]

Just according to keikaku.*

* Note: keikaku means Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[soul creator]

Why would people "worship" the state, by the way?

because Obama and his hypnotizing speeches convinced them to!

 

[JayDubya]

Why would people "worship" the state, by the way?

The "cult of personality" aspect around communist dictators is a pretty common trait.

Of course; not my point, someone else's. Still, if we're going to play the loose association of religion to unjust deaths, rather than attributing them to Monarchy or Communism or whatnot, even if you give all of Hitler's to Christianity, "Atheism" still wins.

Which serves to highlight only that such a poor correlation is meaningless anyway.