Support NeoGAF

[V_Arnold]

Amir0x, my heart literally breaks a little when reading your comments.

But let me just say two things.

One: fighting RELIGIOUS organizations that aim to abuse the system, create awful and dumb zealots and make money? Sign me up. I will try to fight them with you

Two: intelligent, peaceful people - many I know personally - ,that also properly believe in supernatural things like sixth sense, the connection between everyone, and reincarnation? They are better people than ANY "fighter" ever will be. Ever. And they do not try to shove their believs right onto others.

 

[Zaptruder]

Amir0x, my heart literally breaks a little when reading your comments.

But let me just say two things.

One: fighting RELIGIOUS organizations that aim to abuse the system, create awful and dumb zealots and make money? Sign me up. I will try to fight them with you

Two: intelligent, peaceful people - many I know personally - ,that also properly believe in supernatural things like sixth sense, the connection between everyone, and reincarnation? They are better people than ANY "fighter" ever will be. Ever. And they do not try to shove their believs right onto others.

Does been good, intelligent, peaceful people automatically make all their beliefs correct?

 

[V_Arnold]

Does been good, intelligent, peaceful people automatically make all their beliefs correct?

Nope. But it is their own damn business if they believe in something or not. And a "belief" wont be wrong no matter how many agressive atheists say so.

 

[Rapstah]

Nope. But it is their own damn business if they believe in something or not. And a "belief" wont be wrong no matter how many agressive atheists say so.

If I believe that I am a potato, can I never be proven wrong?

 

[V_Arnold]

If I believe that I am a potato, can I never be proven wrong?

Wow. That is a new low, I guess.

 

[CharminUltra]

Nope. But it is their own damn business if they believe in something or not. And a "belief" wont be wrong no matter how many agressive atheists say so.

Wrong.

As long as religion influences laws and policies that affect me or the ones I love, you bet your ass I'll make it my business.

 

[Amir0x]

Amir0x, my heart literally breaks a little when reading your comments.

But let me just say two things.

One: fighting RELIGIOUS organizations that aim to abuse the system, create awful and dumb zealots and make money? Sign me up. I will try to fight them with you

*raises fist in solidarity*

Two: intelligent, peaceful people - many I know personally - ,that also properly believe in supernatural things like sixth sense, the connection between everyone, and reincarnation? They are better people than ANY "fighter" ever will be. Ever. And they do not try to shove their believs right onto others.

A fighter has no inherently negative connotation. A fighter may be, for example, someone who survives a concentration camp and then goes on to lead a wonderful life. A fighter may be somehow who resists tyranny, but dies for his sacrifice. A fighter may be someone who lives for 3 months in the Andes Mountains after a plane crash and then, against all odds, treks for 10 days over a mountain in order to reach civilization. Are your 'supernatural believers' better people than they?

More specific to the point you're making, however, is this: IF the people you're talking to want to believe in the Chupacabra and they "don't try to shove their believs right onto others", which means they're completely detached from politics and they don't try to refute actual science which proves their bullshit wrong, then that's fine. I can't possibly have any problem with them since being delusional to oneself is not a crime that hurts humanity at large, except perhaps if you abuse your children by trying to pass on such abhorrent beliefs.

The targets here are people, like Rick Perry, who don't allow their bullshit, factually incorrect fairy tales to remain in their head, and insist on trying to enter the scientific fray by shitting all over reality. These people not only shouldn't be allowed to say these things without being confronted, but they should be fought with all the power inherent in rational, intelligent people. It's a simple difference because people like that have the very real possibility of destroying the world in degrees, and so the urgency of such fighting is a reality.

Nope. But it is their own damn business if they believe in something or not. And a "belief" wont be wrong no matter how many agressive atheists say so.

The thing is if you want to believe crazy shit (shit that actually CAN be wrong, whether those who believe in it want to admit it or not) that's fine, but as long as you're keeping it to yourself and not, for example, abusing your children by indoctrinating them with such garbage. You start treading on scientific reason, then you're going get push back by people who are smart enough to actually look at their surroundings and critically analyze what they're seeing.

 

[V_Arnold]

The thing is if you want to believe crazy shit (shit that actually CAN be wrong, whether those who believe in it want to admit it or not) that's fine, but as long as you're keeping it to yourself and not, for example, abusing your children by indoctrinating them with such garbage. You start treading on scientific reason, then you're going get push back by people who are smart enough to actually look at their surroundings and critically analyze what they're seeing.

I agree with the children part completely. They should be free to pursue whatever goal they want to pursue (unless it is drug dealing and organized crime, in which case me as a future parent WILL try to interfere ), and forcing any religion onto them is very seriously harmful to their spiritual growth, whatever that means to one or another person.

I know a lot of people who deny any kind of "god" not because they reasoned it out, but only because their parents were dumb, strict christians, and those tales are no longer fit to this world, or at least they should get their act together for when the kid actually starts asking questions like "why does god allow so much bad to happen?".

 

[HeadlessRoland]

What I have noticed is that you come across as an arrogant and condescending git, throwing words and concepts around you clearly have no understanding of. You're adding nothing to this conversation (but probably quite a bit to people's ignore lists).

The one calling names like a child that is unable to string two coherent sentences together is calling me out? Sorry dude, I make concise and well-substantiated arguments. I address critique when called upon and make on topic and pertinent rebuttals. I know this sucks for you, deal with it.

As a result, it is more than possible to refute various conceptions of gods (such as the conceptions that are innately tied to claims about the formation of the universe/earth/mankind, etc)... which would just happen to be pretty much all of the ones we'd want to care about anyway.

It certainly is possible to apply science to specific religious claims. And has been, but not the metaphysical claims. The earth being 10 days old or whatever the fuck can be. Can a man heal the sick with his tears, can be. Does God exist, even if god DOES exist cannot be.

In order to accomplish these things in a meaningful way, a god would still be needing to be interacting with and altering the natural world which means that science could indeed be called upon.

Thats the premise of the entire question. With science as a tool what exactly could it address in relationship to an omniscient and omnipotent being interacting with the world. The best answer its going to be able to provide is "Something very powerful doing shit we dont understand" which is hardly verification of an omnipotent being.

Dark matter was observed indirectly through the structure and motion of galaxies and gravitational lensing. There's no alternate theory of gravity that can explain observations like this. Then there's possibly the faintest interactions in dark matter detectors.

Dark matter is an effect, not a thing. Yes we have certainly observed an effect we cannot explain, was not predicted, and up until that point destroyed every single cosmological model we had for the universe. And then it happened again, we named the next one "dark energy" an even more vague and unknown.

Dark matter (mind you various models include the "observation" of dark matter but do not describe it as "dark matter) can at least theoretically be detected and interacted with, it hasnt happened yet but it MAY be possible. Dark Energy? negatron.

In the last few decades we have made two observations that contradict everything we had known prior to that point about the workings of the universe. We still have no idea what they are.

But my point is there are differing criteria for differing sciences. Cosmological models that include dark matter and dark energy are not the same type of theory as say evolution or fuck even GR. Its not the same process, it doesn't have the same standards.

There are Theories and then theories. They are two entirely different animals.

 

[gwarm01]

Posting this link on facebook was probably a mistake. Within the hour I had "professional colleagues" commenting back about how evolution is a fairy tale, and I feel unable to respond honestly for fear of being blacklisted in the community.

Arkansas!!!

 

[gutter_trash]

Dawkins fails because he is not going to convince anyone who is on the ultra-religious side.... it's like trying to talk to a door stop. There is no point

i understand Dawkin fans like him, but it is so useless and pointless for him to "yell at cloud" because it won't change anything

it may even have the opposite affect of having all non-believes labeled as dicks because he is so persistent

 

[StealthGoblin]

Posting this link on facebook was probably a mistake. Within the hour I had "professional colleagues" commenting back about how evolution is a fairy tale, and I feel unable to respond honestly for fear of being blacklisted in the community.

Arkansas!!!

Have those people actually read Genesis? A dude created the universe in seven days, told us we are his absolute favouritest in the whole world, a snake tempted the first two humans to eat a forbidden apple and from then on we have all built into us from the moment of conception something called original sin because God thought we were naughty.

I have actually read fairy tales that make more logical sense than that.

I like Dawkins. He does need to change his tactics and come across less of an arse though. I really think he needs to work at breaking down the barriers gradually instead of unleashing everything at once. Targeted attacks, if you will.

 

[V_Arnold]

Wrong.

As long as religion influences laws and policies that affect me or the ones I love, you bet your ass I'll make it my business.

You are mashing two very, very different things together.
One is an inner property of every "self".
Other is merely an act of greed based upon good will and naivity of others.

 

[Dead Man]

Dawkins fails because he is not going to convince anyone who is on the ultra-religious side.... it's like trying to talk to a door stop. There is no point

i understand Dawkin fans like him, but it is so useless and pointless for him to "yell at cloud" because it won't change anything

it may even have the opposite affect of having all non-believes labeled as dicks because he is so persistent

He may not be able to change the ultra hardcore, but as a couple posters in this thread have shown, those who are less indoctrinated can change their beliefs.

 

[njean777]

You are right that there is no way to be 100% sure that there isn't a god or gods. However, there is no way to be 100% sure of anything. As human beings we are constantly making judgement calls on what is likely or unlikely, and are constantly dismissing unlikely scenarios. For instance, my car may blow up if I start it tomorrow morning after eating breakfast, but I figure that is very unlikely and will do so anyhow. I view god(s) and religion the same way. There is no tangible proof of god or gods as described by any of the world's religions. Until there is something tangible to consider, I'll choose to believe the much simpler scenario where things are exactly as they appear and there is no metaphysical force in the universe. There may be one, but based on current evidence, I'd judge that scenario to be unlikely to the point that it isn't worth considering while choosing how I live my life. If god presents himself to me (or the world in general) tomorrow, than I will chance my stance to that of a theist and adjust who I live my life accordingly.

The second part of your question (from the perspective of a biologist): Religious beliefs mainly hold back science through a lack of funding. Especially in the United States and Canada which are (theoretically) theologically neutral. Government funding is a very important source of scientific innovation, and is particularly important in the training of future scientists. The Hawkings of the world have no problem securing private research grants now, but that probably wasn't the case when they were in graduate school.

Religious belief is on a decline in most post-industrial countries. I think this leads to religious leaders (who naturally want to keep their constituents) lashing out at things they perceive to erode religious beliefs or "morals". The two biggest targets seem to be the media (which competes for attention and mindshare) and science (which directly conflicts with some of what is written in religious texts). People like media, so that is usually a losing-battle. However, most people do not have the training or educational background to properly assess scientific evidence (It doesn't help that scientists are usually horrible at translating their findings into simple language). When your spiritual/community leader is telling you that scientific fact X is wrong, and you can't assess that fact yourself, it is easy to take his word for it. Especially since these priests/rabbis/pastors/clerics/etc ARE able to provide guidance in many other areas of life. The problem occurs when a religious person who was turned off of science previously gains clout in the political sphere. The people who ultimately in charge of a country's scientific research and education budget budget are typically not people with a background in science. Scientific research budgets seem like an easy thing to cut when you don't realize how much of a country's productivity is driven by scientific discovery.



What does it matter really? Science never will have all the answers to life's questions. In the future, we may be able to piece together more in regards to the origin of the universe, but that hardly matters in one's stance of atheism. Hell, you could be an atheist who rejects modern science. Science and atheism are not mutually inclusive.

Thank you for giving me a well thought out answer. While I know religion may in the past held back science, it doesn't much anymore. You also answered my question really well. That is why this argument is futile, we just do not know if their is or isn't a god nor will we ever really. The proof we have is shaky at best (shroud) but there is still some proof whether you beileve it or not is your decision.

This debate will never be answered, as much as atheist like to argue it out, it just will not change. Religion will not die out. Neither will science. People just need to accept that other people have different beliefs and move on with their life. You are not wrong or right, and neither are religious people.

 

[magicstop]

Thank you for giving me a well thought out answer. While I know religion may in the past held back science, it doesn't much anymore. You also answered my question really well. That is why this argument is futile, we just do not know if their is or isn't a god nor will we ever really. The proof we have is shaky at best (shroud) but there is still some proof whether you beileve it or not is your decision.

This debate will never be answered, as much as atheist like to argue it out, it just will not change. Religion will not die out. Neither will science. People just need to accept that other people have different beliefs and move on with their life. You are not wrong or right, and neither are religious people.

This, unfortunately, just isn't a solution when it comes to politics and governing. It's not a matter of "live and let live" when electing public officials. For religious people, electing similarly religious officials is important so that their beliefs have a chance of being reflected in public policy (even though there is a SUPPOSED separation of church and state). For non-religious people, the opposite is true.

This plays out in other arenas as well, and there are areas of knowledge where the two paradigms are incompatible. If much of science and Christianity is incompatible, for instance (and no, god of the gaps is a loser, and the continual revision of what god is and what religion is in order to make science work with it speaks to its inaccuracy in my mind), then what do we do about teaching our children? We can't just accept the difference of beliefs when our children are being taught one system or the other.

Also, what evidence IS there of god that you speak of? I've just never heard any at all. And the idea that we will never be able to prove the existence of god means . . . why the belief? If there is absolutely no real evidence, and the onus of burden is upon proving the existence of something (because I can claim all sorts of shit exists, i.e. the spaghetti monster, and if there are no consequences or need to offer proof, shit falls apart), then NOT being able to prove god seems pretty problematic. Why bother believing in something that has no real world evidence, interaction, or existence? Why not at least come up with a badass idea to believe in, if it's all the same functionally?

I'll take Odin any day of the week, but first I prefer rational, logical, and testable interactions with the real world. It's not about WANTING there to not be a god, it's not about WANTING Dawkins to be right, or something else . . . it's about accepting what are proven to be the most accurate, repeatable, and consistent observations about the world to provide a consistent foundations for interacting with reality.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

The one calling names like a child that is unable to string two coherent sentences together is calling me out? Sorry dude, I make concise and well-substantiated arguments. I address critique when called upon and make on topic and pertinent rebuttals. I know this sucks for you, deal with it.

Head meet arse.

 

[triplestation]

He may not be able to change the ultra hardcore, but as a couple posters in this thread have shown, those who are less indoctrinated can change their beliefs.

Really, I don't think that it takes an entire book to change someone's perception on the matter. People questioned religion much much further back before Richard Dawkins came into the picture. The ones who remain faithful will remain very faithful. And I feel he's a bit of a clever guy because him stating the obvious in the form of the atheist bible will make him look like the liberator of critical thought over faith. Which is goddamned bullshit.

 

[njean777]

This, unfortunately, just isn't a solution when it comes to politics and governing. It's not a matter of "live and let live" when electing public officials. For religious people, electing similarly religious officials is important so that their beliefs have a chance of being reflected in public policy (even though there is a SUPPOSED separation of church and state). For non-religious people, the opposite is true.

This plays out in other arenas as well, and there are areas of knowledge where the two paradigms are incompatible. If much of science and Christianity is incompatible, for instance (and no, god of the gaps is a loser, and the continual revision of what god is and what religion is in order to make science work with it speaks to its inaccuracy in my mind), then what do we do about teaching our children? We can't just accept the difference of beliefs when our children are being taught one system or the other.

Also, what evidence IS there of god that you speak of? I've just never heard any at all. And the idea that we will never be able to prove the existence of god means . . . why the belief? If there is absolutely no real evidence, and the onus of burden is upon proving the existence of something (because I can claim all sorts of shit exists, i.e. the spaghetti monster, and if there are no consequences or need to offer proof, shit falls apart), then NOT being able to prove god seems pretty problematic. Why bother believing in something that has no real world evidence, interaction, or existence? Why not at least come up with a badass idea to believe in, if it's all the same functionally?

I'll take Odin any day of the week, but first I prefer rational, logical, and testable interactions with the real world. It's not about WANTING there to not be a god, it's not about WANTING Dawkins to be right, or something else . . . it's about accepting what are proven to be the most accurate, repeatable, and consistent observations about the world to provide a consistent foundations for interacting with reality.

See you are coming at this from an angle of not wanting to believe in something if its not tangibly in front of your eyes. Which is fine, but when you put down demean or call ignorant somebody that does not follow that logic, then it is not fine. You are not the judge, you are not righteous, you are nothing when it comes to the whole picture. Neither am I, neither is anybody. Your reliance on thinking you are correct is your problem. Some people do not need proof, some people just want to believe. This is the part where you would call them ignorant, but how is the world does that make them ignorant? Just because they do not follow your logic? That my friend would then be considered your arrogance.

Rational, logical, and testable to who? you? what makes you so smart? If you want rational then you are on the wrong planet. Thats what makes this planet interesting, everybody has different ideals, morals, beliefs. IF you wanted to believe that god is a unicorn go ahead, I won't stop you. Why? because it isn't affecting me one bit, now when you let it affect people then it is a problem, I agree. But your atheism and snarky comments affect people. Your constant degrading of believers affects people. You don't care then do you?

Considering the children, if you do not want them learning this and want them to make up their own mind, then by all means that is YOUR responsibility. I don't hear your same argument, when atheist professors throw arguments at college students everyday. Same thing if it were the other way around, if we had nothing but atheist pre school teachers, they would call Billy stupid for believing in god, is that right also?

For real world evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relics_associated_with_Jesus. This has more to do with jesus but if you believe in Jesus then you most likely believe in God. These are real world items, if you choose not to believe in them that is fine, but they are real, and can be used as evidence for belief.

Being rude when arguing god will not get you anywhere. This you should know from debate class. If you want a real argument, then be cordial,and calm. Already with saying the flying spaghetti monster you are already comparing something that many believers hold dear to them with idiotic comparison that will turn off a religious person, so your words have no effect.

 

[CharminUltra]

You are mashing two very, very different things together.
One is an inner property of every "self".
Other is merely an act of greed based upon good will and naivity of others.

Arguing that religion doesn't directly affect politics worldwide means you are either very naive or very ignorant. Probably both.

 

[Kinitari]

Really, I don't think that it takes an entire book to change someone's perception on the matter. People questioned religion much much further back before Richard Dawkins came into the picture. The ones who remain faithful will remain very faithful. And I feel he's a bit of a clever guy because him stating the obvious in the form of the atheist bible will make him look like the liberator of critical thought over faith. Which is goddamned bullshit.

You do realize that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, right? He's not writing the Atheist manifesto. He argues against people who ignorantly belittle his life's work.

I think the people making him out as something greater aren't his fans.

 

[V_Arnold]

Arguing that religion doesn't directly affect politics worldwide means you are either very naive or very ignorant. Probably both.

Aha.
This is starting to get into comedy territory again.

 

[The Technomancer]

Rational, logical, and testable to who? you? what makes you so smart? If you want rational then you are on the wrong planet. Thats what makes this planet interesting, everybody has different ideals, morals, beliefs. IF you wanted to believe that god is a unicorn go ahead, I won't stop you. Why? because it isn't affecting me one bit, now when you let it affect people then it is a problem, I agree. But your atheism and snarky comments affect people. Your constant degrading of believers affects people. You don't care then do you?

Right....but....religious beliefs affect public policy all the time. If I was gay I'd be pretty pissed that gay marriage is still illegal because a segment of the population views it as "immoral"

 

[njean777]

Right....but....religious beliefs affect public policy all the time. If I was gay I'd be pretty pissed that gay marriage is still illegal because a segment of the population views it as "immoral"

Then it is your right not to vote for them, just because they think it is wrong doesn't mean they are ignorant that is just how they feel. If you don't like it don't vote for them, its simple. It sucks to be gay and not be able to be married, but its still a social stigma. I don't mind them being married, and slowly the US is starting to let it happen. It may take awhile but its happening. Also you can get married if gay in some states.

 

[Amir0x]

See you are coming at this from an angle of not wanting to believe in something if its not tangibly in front of your eyes. Which is fine, but when you put down demean or call ignorant somebody that does not follow that logic, then it is not fine. You are not the judge, you are not righteous, you are nothing when it comes to the whole picture. Neither am I, neither is anybody. Your reliance on thinking you are correct is your problem. Some people do not need proof, some people just want to believe.

That's fine. But then these people better shut their goddamn mouths about science and reality and politics, elsewise they're going to be eviscerated by non-retards. It's simple.

This is the part where you would call them ignorant, but how is the world does that make them ignorant? Just because they do not follow your logic? That my friend would then be considered your arrogance.

My first question would be what logic DO they follow, exactly? Is logic even at play here? If I said that I know of a colony of mystical unicorn lions who can grant any wish, but unfortunately you can never see them because only a recitement of the fairy dust screed can open the way... And that screed will only be revealed unto us in the final days, when the great war of pixies vs. the goat testiclemen is fought and the "GREAT INSIGHT" is achieved at its conclusion, would you say it is borne of logic? Would you take it seriously?

What if I formed a coalition and this belief standard grew in both size and political power. And one of its great laws was that people who followed the evil goat testiclemen, which is defined as anyone who doesn't firmly believe in the great fairy and pixie cause, must be forced to one week hard labor per year as a price for their non-belief, would you then say we should leave these people alone to their beliefs?

"Arrogant atheists" speak up because there is a need for rationality in the face of such grotesque human beings like Rick Perry. If these people allowed their delusions to remain in the arena of their pathetic, frail minds, no one would complain I'd wager.

Rational, logical, and testable to who? you? what makes you so smart? If you want rational then you are on the wrong planet. Thats what makes this planet interesting, everybody has different ideals, morals, beliefs. IF you wanted to believe that god is a unicorn go ahead, I won't stop you. Why? because it isn't affecting me one bit, now when you let it affect people then it is a problem, I agree. But your atheism and snarky comments affect people. Your constant degrading of believers affects people. You don't care then do you?

The bullshit you're hiding behind is the idea that ones belief isn't affecting others. This is not only unarguably not true, but religion is one of the top core reasons for going to war against your fellow man that has ever been. It is the force for oppression, hatred, lies. It is the force for torture, genocide and taking away others rights in the name of their faceless and fabricated God.

IF you are one of those rare individuals who believe in God and then don't ever enter politics and try to affect your beliefs to the population at large, if you're are one of those rare individuals who don't try to insert your frankly absurd ideas of how the universe was created and how we came to be into the scientific debate, if you're one of those who believes 'live and let live', genuinely, then obviously no one has any qualm with you.

But I can list thousands, tens of thousands, of cases where this is not the case for people who believe in religion. This topic is about someone where this is not the case. "Arrogant atheists", or more correctly "aggressive atheists", exist by necessity to counter the forces that seek to destroy our world by poisoning it with their superstitious mumbo jumbo, by indoctrinating their children to a new generation of hate against people who believe differently than they, people who are born homosexual, against people who are Sunni or Kurd or Protestant or Catholic or any one who thinks differently than you. Countless examples of political leaders trying to impose their religious absurdities onto EDUCATIONAL text books, countless examples of their grotesque dogma corrupting their political policies, near endless lists of horrors done at the behest of a jealous and vicious God.

YOU may say you can stay out of the fray, and if you truly do nobody has a problem with you. But religion at large does not do this, nor has it ever, nor will it ever... and because of that, we have a fucking human NECESSITY to stand up and speak against the tyranny of religious retards and non-thinkers who have undeniably made this world worse.

Considering the children, if you do not want them learning this and want them to make up their own mind, then by all means that is YOUR responsibility. I don't hear your same argument, when atheist professors throw arguments at college students everyday. Same thing if it were the other way around, if we had nothing but atheist pre school teachers, they would call Billy stupid for believing in god, is that right also?

For real world evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relics_associated_with_Jesus. This has more to do with jesus but if you believe in Jesus then you most likely believe in God. These are real world items, if you choose not to believe in them that is fine, but they are real, and can be used as evidence for belief.

No they fucking can't. Nearly every single relic ever associated with the man has been proven a fake, a medieval forgery, not even from his fucking time. Out of the bare handful that even comes within a few hundred years of Christ... Not a one of them demonstrates any miraculous properties, indeed... most of these were used to try to draw gullible pilgrims so that these corrupt churches could fill their coffers and expand their malignant influence throughout the fucking world.

Being rude when arguing god will not get you anywhere. This you should know from debate class. If you want a real argument, then be cordial,and calm. Already with saying the flying spaghetti monster you are already comparing something that many believers hold dear to them with idiotic comparison that will turn off a religious person, so your words have no effect.

If you actually want to debate, you'll demonstrate why the idea of believing in The Flying Spaghetti Monster is any less worthy of respect and careful reasoned logical analysis than belief in the Abrahamic God who has endorsed slavery, stoning entire families of rapists, killed children, tortured followers and non-followers, killing homosexuals.

At least The Flying Spaghetti Monster touches people with his noodly appendage from a stand point of genuine good. He's never killed in the name of his Meatball-y intentions.

 

[CharminUltra]

If you don't like it don't vote for them, its simple.

The point is religion shouldn't be influencing politics in the first place. If a law or policy is designed to push some kind of religious agenda then voters belonging to said religion are almost guaranteed to support it. THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. History has shown us time and time again that this is a terrible idea.

Religious people would have you believe their beliefs only affect them. Anyone with a brain will tell you that's not the case.

 

[Air]

Right....but....religious beliefs affect public policy all the time. If I was gay I'd be pretty pissed that gay marriage is still illegal because a segment of the population views it as "immoral"

True that in many cases forms of religious belief can hold something like same sex marriage back, there are plenty of other countries (with less religious belief than the us) that do not allow it.

I know you're only talking about America, and your point still stands, but other countries less religious than our own have no excuse to not allow gay marriage. So that kind of begs the question of why that is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Current_status

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Right....but....religious beliefs affect public policy all the time. If I was gay I'd be pretty pissed that gay marriage is still illegal because a segment of the population views it as "immoral"

For those that are religious, it's not exactly easy to separate church and state for them regarding certain issues. They're idea of right and wrong is derived from religious teachings.
Who are they to say that they shouldn't get a say because their morals are located from the bible?
They don't have to agree with your morals.

 

[Cyan]

Nope. But it is their own damn business if they believe in something or not. And a "belief" wont be wrong no matter how many agressive atheists say so.

Maybe you mean "it can't be wrong to hold a belief"? Which I still might disagree with, but less vehemently.

Of course it's possible for a belief to be wrong. The strength or usefulness of a belief is in how well it models the world around you, i.e. its predictive and descriptive power. If a belief has negative predictive power, I think it's fair to call it "wrong."

I suppose you could mess with a belief such that it has zero rather than negative predictive power. Move from e.g. "prayer can cause real-world effects" to "prayer is something between me and God, which doesn't affect the world around me." Then you could say the belief can't be wrong. Of course, it wouldn't be a very useful belief, but that's an entirely different matter.

Posting this link on facebook was probably a mistake. Within the hour I had "professional colleagues" commenting back about how evolution is a fairy tale, and I feel unable to respond honestly for fear of being blacklisted in the community.

Arkansas!!!

Just in-group signal by mentioning how much a self-righteous jerk Dawkins is. Easy peasy.

 

[njean777]

That's fine. But then these people better shut their goddamn mouths about science and reality and politics, elsewise they're going to be eviscerated by non-retards. It's simple.



My first question would be what logic DO they follow, exactly? Is logic even at play here? If I said that I know of a colony of mystical unicorn lions who can grant any wish, but unfortunately you can never see them because only a recitement of the fairy dust screed can open the way... And that screed will only be revealed unto us in the final days, when the great war of pixies vs. the goat testiclemen is fought and the "GREAT INSIGHT" is achieved at its conclusion, would you say it is borne of logic? Would you take it seriously?

What if I formed a coalition and this belief standard grew in both size and political power. And one of its great laws was that people who followed the evil goat testiclemen, which is defined as anyone who doesn't firmly believe in the great fairy and pixie cause, must be forced to one week hard labor per year as a price for their non-belief, would you then say we should leave these people alone to their beliefs?

"Arrogant atheists" speak up because there is a need for rationality in the face of such grotesque human beings like Rick Perry. If these people allowed their delusions to remain in the arena of their pathetic, frail minds, no one would complain I'd wager.



The bullshit you're hiding behind is the idea that ones belief isn't affecting others. This is not only unarguably not true, but religion is one of the top core reasons for going to war against your fellow man that has ever been. It is the force for oppression, hatred, lies. It is the force for torture, genocide and taking away others rights in the name of their faceless and fabricated God.

IF you are one of those rare individuals who believe in God and then don't ever enter politics and try to affect your beliefs to the population at large, if you're are one of those rare individuals who don't try to insert your frankly absurd ideas of how the universe was created and how we came to be into the scientific debate, if you're one of those who believes 'live and let live', genuinely, then obviously no one has any qualm with you.

But I can list thousands, tens of thousands, of cases where this is not the case for people who believe in religion. This topic is about someone where this is not the case. "Arrogant atheists", or more correctly "aggressive atheists", exist by necessity to counter the forces that seek to destroy our world by poisoning it with their superstitious mumbo jumbo, by indoctrinating their children to a new generation of hate against people who believe differently than they, people who are born homosexual, against people who are Sunni or Kurd or Protestant or Catholic or any one who thinks differently than you. Countless examples of political leaders trying to impose their religious absurdities onto EDUCATIONAL text books, countless examples of their grotesque dogma corrupting their political policies, near endless lists of horrors done at the behest of a jealous and vicious God.

YOU may say you can stay out of the fray, and if you truly do nobody has a problem with you. But religion at large does not do this, nor has it ever, nor will it ever... and because of that, we have a fucking human NECESSITY to stand up and speak against the tyranny of religious retards and non-thinkers who have undeniably made this world worse.



No they fucking can't. Nearly every single relic ever associated with the man has been proven a fake, a medieval forgery, not even from his fucking time. Out of the bare handful that even comes within a few hundred years of Christ... Not a one of them demonstrates any miraculous properties, indeed... most of these were used to try to draw gullible pilgrims so that these corrupt churches could fill their coffers and expand their malignant influence throughout the fucking world.



If you actually want to debate, you'll demonstrate why the idea of believing in The Flying Spaghetti Monster is any less worthy of respect and careful reasoned logical analysis than belief in the Abrahamic God who has endorsed slavery, stoning entire families of rapists, killed children, tortured followers and non-followers, killing homosexuals.

At least The Flying Spaghetti Monster touches people with his noodly appendage from a stand point of genuine good. He's never killed in the name of his Meatball-y intentions.

Im not gonna argue with you, just by your post's you make me want to really (not neogaf) argue with you in front of people just so I can prove to you how childish you are. Look to my last paragraph again and that is why. Also just to make it clear, if you were arguing about god being real or not, to a believer comparing him to something as stupid as a spaghetti monster is just outright rude. Why? Oh I don't know maybe because they take their belief seriously and the atheist doing the talking just by saying that is already making them (believer) to be ignorant.

The point is religion shouldn't be influencing politics in the first place. If a law or policy is designed to push some kind of religious agenda then voters belonging to said religion are almost guaranteed to support it. THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. History has shown us time and time again that this is a terrible idea.

Religious people would have you believe their beliefs only affect them. Anyone with a brain will tell you that's not the case.

I agree with you it shouldn't, but sitting on Neogaf arguing about it will not change anything now will it?

 

[Air]

The bullshit you're hiding behind is the idea that ones belief isn't affecting others. This is not only unarguably not true, but religion is one of the top core reasons for going to war against your fellow man that has ever been. It is the force for oppression, hatred, lies. It is the force for torture, genocide and taking away others rights in the name of their faceless and fabricated God.

I just wanted to address this specific part of your post. I don't think most of the wars we as humanity have fought have been in the name of religion. Most of our wars have been fought for land, food, or purely for the love of conquest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Ten_largest_wars_.28by_death_toll.29

While this book doesn't cover the whole of human history, they have charted 1,763 ward, and only 7% were classified as religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#Overall

I am not arguing the other points of religions holding social progress back, just the war point.

 

[Cyan]

sitting on Neogaf arguing about [anything] will not change anything now will it?

Time to shut down neogaf, I guess.

 

[Amir0x]

Im not gonna argue with you, just by your post's you make me want to really (not neogaf) argue with you in front of people just so I can prove to you how childish you are.

My family are religious fundamentalists. I am used to arguing with them and their friends all the time, up until fairly recently. I argued with the precise same amount of force there as I did here. It neither embarrasses me nor deterred me. Really, the only negative feeling I ever had was pity. Because I actually felt pity during the time I chipped into ones faith so hard that she actually started crying. And I admit, after that I considered that maybe for some people it'd be better to let them live in their delusion.

But those are not the people we're talking about. We're talking about people who want to live the delusion and then force aspects of their delusion onto others, either as a matter of political law or plain stupidity or straight up humanitarian horrors - killing, rape, torture.

Look to my last paragraph again and that is why. Also just to make it clear, if you were arguing about god being real or not, to a believer comparing him to something as stupid as a spaghetti monster is just outright rude. Why? Oh I don't know maybe because they take their belief seriously and the atheist doing the talking just by saying that is already making them (believer) to be ignorant.

So we should treat the outrageous statements of these people with special reverence/protection because they REALLY believe? No matter how much corrupting influence and damage they do to the world about them?

How come they get to KILL PEOPLE and CHANGE POLICIES in the name of their horrific God, but if we merely compare their fucked up fabricated God to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for which there is an equivalent amount of proof, we're being insensitive and 'rude'?

Well, I'll take being rude then. Because being rude is clearly, demonstratively superior to being part of the alternative organizations who claim to serve a just and loving God and yet at every corner destroy our world piece by piece.

I just wanted to address this specific part of your post. I don't think most of the wars we as humanity have fought have been in the name of religion. Most of our wars have been fought for land, food, or purely for the love of conquest.

Re-read my sentence. I didn't say it was the cause of most wars. I said it was one of the top causes of war. It is not #1. It is important to note, however, that of all the reasons that are above and below religion, almost none of them are related to DISBELIEF in God. Some states have incidentally caused horrors and been run by a nonreligious/atheistic leader, but they almost never go to war to end the scourge of religion. And, of course, these cases are so comparatively small in the history of the world that it's hardly fair.

 

[Pandaman]

Im not gonna argue with you, just by your post's you make me want to really (not neogaf) argue with you in front of people just so I can prove to you how childish you are. Look to my last paragraph again and that is why. Also just to make it clear, if you were arguing about god being real or not, to a believer comparing him to something as stupid as a spaghetti monster is just outright rude. Why? Oh I don't know maybe because they take their belief seriously and the atheist doing the talking just by saying that is already making them (believer) to be ignorant.

Yes, thats the point.
Because they are.

Why do you assume you deserve undue respect for your beliefs?

 

[Air]

Re-read my sentence. I didn't say it was the cause of most wars. I said it was one of the top causes of war. It is not #1.

Yeah I know what you said. But I think if you look at the links I provided, it shouldn't be considered one of the top causes.

But I mean there are only really like 4 or 5 causes for wars anyway.

Regarding your edit, I never said the wars were caused by non-believers or anything of that nature. In my post I said that war is usually related to resources, not beliefs. I am not saying anything about the frame of mind or beliefs of those who initiated the wars.

 

[Cyan]

Why do you assume you deserve undue respect for your beliefs?

A standard part of these threads seems to be meta-commentary to avoid debate.

 

[Amir0x]

Yeah I know what you said. But I think if you look at the links I provided, it shouldn't be considered one of the top causes.

But I mean there are only really like 4 or 5 causes for wars anyway.

Regarding your edit, I never said the wars were caused by non-believers or anything of that nature. In my post I said that war is usually related to resources, not beliefs. I am not saying anything about the frame of mind or beliefs of those who initiated the wars.

Right, I wasn't suggesting you were. I was just raising the point that taking religion out of the picture wouldn't mean an awful amoral world where everything breaks down. I'm just saying that yes, religion is one of the top causes of war - if that is indeed a good break down percentage, it still is one of the top causes. That's a huge number in the scheme of things. I'm saying that without religion, untold millenia of suffering would have been undone. I'm saying that as long as religious individuals wants to continue to hide behind their false Gods to bring suffering to their fellow man, it is important that there be "aggressive atheists" to speak out against their tyranny and delusions.

That's all.

 

[VistraNorrez]

How exactly is anyone supposed to teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution, anyway? ID takes no more than 30 seconds to thoroughly explain. If your are raising your children religious they already know about a creator. What more needs to be said? You can't mention any religions or their myths.

 

[Amir0x]

How exactly is anyone supposed to teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution, anyway? ID takes no more than 30 seconds to thoroughly explain. If your are raising your children religious they already know about a creator. What more needs to be said? You can't mention any religions or their myths.

You have to give time to discuss all the mountain of proof and evid--hahahahhaahha

 

[Air]

Right, I wasn't suggesting you were. I was just raising the point that taking religion out of the picture wouldn't mean an awful amoral world where everything breaks down. I'm just saying that yes, religion is one of the top causes of war - if that is indeed a good break down percentage, it still is one of the top causes. That's a huge number in the scheme of things. I'm saying that without religion, untold millenia of suffering would have been undone. I'm saying that as long as religious individuals wants to continue to hide behind their false Gods to bring suffering to their fellow man, it is important that there be "aggressive atheists" to speak out against their tyranny and delusions.

That's all.

I understand, but I disagree. We can agree to disagree, but I feel like phasing out the other 93% of issues that cause war should be more important.

But that's all I'll say on the subject. Carry on.

EDIT: I think we can atleast agree that the majority of the reasons why wars are caused are because those people(who initiated) were dicks.

I think that's fair.

 

[Atramental]

How exactly is anyone supposed to teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution, anyway? ID takes no more than 30 seconds to thoroughly explain. If your are raising your children religious they already know about a creator. What more needs to be said? You can't mention any religions or their myths.

I have some experience of being taught by a Creationist "science" teacher at BJU.

It's basically nothing but going through all the evidence of evolution and saying "That's not evidence, That's wrong, That's fake, and That's not what the Bible says."

 

[njean777]

Yes, thats the point.
Because they are.

Why do you assume you deserve undue respect for your beliefs?

Also I love this "yes thats the point because they are", I love how you just assume people who believe are stupid, thats almost as stupid as what you just wrote. Grow up please, you are not the all knowing.

Because I am a human being, its the same question I raise to the youth of this generation. WHERE DID ALL THE FUCKING RESPECT GO? Nobody shows any anymore, if you are a human being show some damn respect for people.

 

[CornBurrito]

Because I am a human being, its the same question I raise to the youth of this generation. WHERE DID ALL THE FUCKING RESPECT GO? Nobody shows any anymore, if you are a human being show some damn respect for people.

There is something very wrong with you if you cannot understand the difference between respecting a belief, and respecting a person.

Do you think all beliefs deserve respect?

 

[njean777]

There is something very wrong with you if you cannot understand the difference between respecting a belief, and respecting a person.

Do you think all beliefs deserve respect?

Yeah they do, respecting somebody by telling them they are wrong and making them look like a moron is rude. Especially on this subject. That belief that there is a god is something personal to that person(usually), its like saying "Oh your Gay? what a fag" its rude and you know it.

Having respect is different from debate, while you are debating its fine to call the person beliefs to question, but doing it in a rude and disrespectful manner is not. If you don't believe that then you are just as rude as others.

Ever heard the words "think before you speak?" most people on this forum really need to heed those words.

 

[Cyan]

Yeah they do, respecting somebody by telling them they are wrong and making them look like a moron is rude. Especially on this subject.

If that's what you believe, there's really no point to you being in this thread, as there's no way for anyone to debate you without you being insulted.

 

[CornBurrito]

Yeah they do, respecting somebody by telling them they are wrong and making them look like a moron is rude. Especially on this subject. That belief that there is a god is something personal to that person(usually), its like saying "Oh your Gay? what a fag" its rude and you know it.

What you seem to be describing is someone using ad hominem attacks. Those fall under being disrespectful to the person, not just their beliefs.

And anyway right now I am of the belief that if njean777 posts in this thread 7 million people will get cancer. You better not disrespect my belief by posting in this thread dude! And don't tell me that my belief is unsubstantiated rubbish, because that would be totally rude and make me feel like a moron.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

There is a point where "It's their own damn business what they believe" stops being their own damn business and starts being everyone's damn business, namely, the entire public school system in Texas. When religious beliefs start affecting public policy, it is no longer private, harmless, or exempt from criticism/condemnation, hence THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THIS THREAD GOING THIS LONG. IF EVERYONE KEPT THEIR BELIEFS TO THEMSELVES, WE WOULDN"T BE HAVING THIS GODDAMN CONVERSATION. STOP PRETENDING THAT PERSONAL BELIEFS ONLY AFFECT THAT INDIVIDUAL.

 

[Hawkian]

Oh, he can be quite blunt and direct with his opinions and say them without apology. Add in his British accent and he comes off as an arrogant prick to many.

But that's their problem if they can't handle it. You don't have a right not to be offended. The facts are the facts whether you accept them or not.

The great Neil DeGrasse Tyson comment on Dawkins' abrasive style and Dawkin's response is appropriate here.

I know this is from the first page, but this was a great couple of minutes. I deeply respect both men, though I'd certainly rather sit down with Tyson.

 

[njean777]

What you seem to be describing is someone using ad hominem attacks. Those fall under being disrespectful to the person, not just their beliefs.

And anyway right now I am of the belief that if njean777 posts in this thread 7 million people will get cancer. You better not disrespect my belief by posting in this thread dude! And don't tell me that my belief is unsubstantiated rubbish, because that would be totally rude and make me feel like a moron.

No thats not the point, I just have a fine respect for people unlike most. I don't judge people based on their religious views or lack thereof. The reason I get angry about this subject is because people on this board just put down people of religion like there is no tomorrow. Its childish, and people really need to think about other people. Its not about disagreeing with me ,you can do that, but when it is disrespectful like AMirox then its not right.

 

[triplestation]

You do realize that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, right? He's not writing the Atheist manifesto. He argues against people who ignorantly belittle his life's work.

I think the people making him out as something greater aren't his fans.

I'm aware of this. And he isn't the only one. Difference is he likes to disrespect religion and people who cherish it.

The God Delusion is the title of his book and that says tons. This guy blames religion as the root of all evil. You have to be a goddamned moron to think that if you stop religion, you stop violence/evil/greed. That's something that will exist no matter what.

The people who go to churches and mosques and monasteries and temples all go because it simply pleases their lifestyles. They don't want to go out and burn down villages of other cultures.

Really, this guy's work and words are pointless and something people can figure out on their own.