What is Digg?229 Comments
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -15/+59@lesty
"It's a smart ass way of saying i don't know do you?"
Do you have a better way to respond to that kind of question? I think it's obvious that theists believe what they believe not because of some actual direct interaction with a god, but because of the cultural and religious system into which they were born. That was the thrust of his answer, not the rhetorical "what if _you're_ wrong?". - bruenig, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46The question was actually more of an argument. The implication of the question was "If you are wrong, you go to hell which is bad. Therefore you should believe." He read into this implied argument and attacked that instead of answering the question.
You cannot answer the question itself because not only do you not know which religion happens be true (they are all equally unsubstantiated), there is also the chance that it could be a religion that doesn't exist and therefore nobody knows of (hence the flying spaghetti monster reference). If you cannot know these things, the question is unanswerable because all of the religions have different consequences for being wrong and for the religions that don't exist, which are equally as valid (or I suppose invalid), the consequences cannot even be known. - decipherd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time.
Reason:
The Websense category "Traditional Religions" is filtered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL:
http://richarddawkins.net/home
Oh, the irony...
- sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -25/+61Yes, he did answer the question.
His answer to the question is based on the entire premise that Christians feel it's necessary that non-Christians (or atheist) must justify their position because "they could be wrong." He's merely stating that by asking such a question --"What if you're wrong?"-- is based on the assumption that *I* am right. How about instead of the atheist having to answer what if they are wrong, Christians (or adherents to any faith) justify why they are right. Asking "what if someone is wrong?" is a question that is based on the assumption that the asker is absolutely right or is more justified in their position than an atheist.
While his answer was quite philosophical, the asker of the question is being a pure sophist.
I do believe in the Juju high in the mountains. So tell me, what if *you're* wrong? - JerodSlay, on 10/12/2007, -29/+64again he doesn't answer the question.
- sonycam, on 10/12/2007, -10/+45@Paladin27
"If an atheist is wrong... they die and they will be judged, you can read the rest of their story in Revelations."
Sounds like their scaring people into believing?
I'm an atheist because I believe that I should make the most out of this life and not worry about scoring points for an afterlife. If any "God" can condemn me for that then so be it. - c0r3file, on 10/12/2007, -39/+70
It's easy to be an atheist until you're on your death bed. Then you start hedging your bets.. - Calculusaurus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33The Q&A session from where this segment is from in its entirety (was front-paged a while ago):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M
70 minutes long, but quite worth it. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+41"He answered a question with a question. It's a smart ass way of saying i don't know do you?"
No, not at all. For her to understand how he feels about the possibility of being wrong, she only has to ask herself the same question. "What if I'm wrong?". Poof. There is her answer. How she feels about her faith is how he feels about his. And now she fully understands his beliefs, because she can relate to how he feels.
It's a very intelligent answer. It forces her to understand his point of view by examining her own point of view. And it does so without getting into the intricacies of different religions. A simple, "Then I'd be wrong" wouldn't have the same impact. - JordanRL, on 10/12/2007, -22/+45He deflected the question... why didn't he just answer it? The question was obviously asked under the premise of a suspension of disbelief.
He's not much of an intellectual if he can't dignify a position he doesn't happen to hold with a suspension of disbelief. I'm all for reason, but he should have answered with a personal statement, not a philosophical generalization. - mindsnare, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26"If you are wrong, you go to hell which is bad. Therefore you should believe."
I tend to take the belief that if there is in fact a higher being that created us all, I shouldn't have anything to worry about, I have gone through my life without harming others, contributing to society, and doing the best I can. What kind of sick minded god would send someone to hell for an apparent eternity for doing good things with their life?
no intelligent being can be so apparently loving yet so apparently vengeful - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -47/+67He answered a question with a question. It's a smart ass way of saying i don't know do you?
- aloser, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26But with a high probability, the Christian will be right there next to them. You forget that there are many *many* different religions out there. You not only have to choose atheist/theist, but if you choose theist you must pick the "right" religion as well.
- UsernameTaken, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24@Paladin27
Let me put some real world perspective into your idealistic answer. If Christians, or religious people in general, are wrong they will simply die and rot like any other life form. The problem lies in what they leave behind. Along with preaching all the nice things you mentioned, they contributed to spread a moral ideology based on blatant falsehoods that led millions of people to believe harmful, or at least potentially harmful, things like "embryos have a sacred soul from day one", "homosexuality is a sin", "if I don't go to church I'll go to hell", "If somebody threatens my faith I might have to kill him", "infidels are evil", etc. Not to mention they didn't take full advantage of their scarce time on earth, since they spent a significant amount of time trapped in obsessive compulsive behavior triggered by their belief system, e. g. attending religious services, repetitive praying, and all forms of meaningless religious ritualism. If atheists are wrong on the other hand, there is no reason to assume that Christians are right, like you do. What about Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists... even ancient Greeks and Aztecs. They can't be all right. Some of them are/were definitely lying. Most likely, all of them. - BlackKnight6, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21If he is wrong the answer is obvious. The question itself is stupid (yes there are stupid questions, no matter what teachers say). If he is wrong, all that means is one possible answer is wrong. Christians could still be wrong, and Hindus, and Muslim and in the end maybe Buddhism is right. See the problem with the question? And THEN there is the same problem where he could ask her the same thing or he could ask anyone else of any other religion. The reason they ask, "What if you are wrong?" is to make you fear you are wrong and become a christian or whatever religion. I will tell you one thing, I will not want to follow any god of any religion if the god wants obedience through fear, that is, if there is one. He answered the question, if you didn't realized, by showing how the question is flawed and gives no help, just tries to instill fear.
It is similar to questions that make you try to prove a negative, which is impossible. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Try again: Christianity recognizes that you can't live up to the ideal and provides for that with the concept of godly forgiveness and love.
Think what you like of Christianity, I don't really mind, but understand what it is you're criticising before you do it. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Sorry, but it seems you completely missed his point. He wasn't dodging the question. He wasn't making fun or her beliefs. He was answering her question. The answer is simple: What if *you're* wrong? For her to understand how he feels about being wrong, all she has to do is understand how she would feel about being wrong. Both are the same. The way he feels about possibly being wrong is the same as she feels about possibly being wrong.
It's very simple really. It's like asking someone, "How would you feel about eating a plateful of feces?". The answer, "Well, how would *you* feel about eating a plateful of feces. Because that's what I feel about it."
For her to understand his beliefs, she only has to look at her own beliefs. That's the point he was making. - milo77, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Do a search for "Appeal to Fear" or "Pascal's Wager"....come on guys, these are basic logical fallacies.
Yes, he answered the question. - jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I definately need to get his book.
- flyguyjm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Because all articulate adults spell sucks as "sux" and still actually use the word sucks in a legitimate sentence...
/sarcasm
And it's not just diggers who listen to what he has to say. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@Paladin27
Any god who would judge me based upon my willingness to believe in him is not a god in which I would want to believe. - davidbond, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30@BadassCheese:
"...whats the harm in just saying a quick prayer as some extra insurance before you die?"
Because you could better spend that time saying farewell to your loved one and imparting some wisdom to your children... - CausticCat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The question was incomplete because the the person asking didn't specify which god or belief system she wanted to learn about.
She obviously knows what happens if you're wrong about the christian god. But what about if you're wrong about Miming, the Norse Minor forest god?
What kinda evil things does he do to you for eternity if you dis him? - Calculusaurus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"That is "brilliantly" thrown back? I think that's a rather common argument that didn't answer the silly question."
No, it didn't answer the question, but it addressed the absurdity of the question. - krackle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@Paladin27 you made a mistake saying "If an atheist is wrong... they die and they will be judged, you can read the rest of their story in Revelations.", as just cause an atheist is wrong doesn't make a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or whatever right. It *could* be something different altogether.
Keep in mind being a good Christian could actually be angering the *real* god even more, but I doubt that will change anyone's faith. Traditions are hard to change. - scanmikey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Why don't you send Mr Dawkins a list of approved answers so he knows how to answer these ridiculous questions in the future?
She was the one being childish to ask that question in the first place. I think his answer was fitting for such an unanswerable question. What if HE is RIGHT?
It would be like an atheist going to a (Enter Religion Here) seminar and asking the same question. What kind of answers do you think the atheist would get? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@deciphered
You have an organisation that filters websites that talking about christianity, but don't filter digg?
Hasn't someone somewhere got a strange set of priorities? Or is it run by atheists? - dutchkabuki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Some people seem not to get his answer so I will rephrase it more directly.
Let's assume there have been 1,000 religions in human history.
Richard Dawkins "disbelieves" every one of them, the questioner (assumed to be a Christian) "disbelieves" in 999 of them and believes in 1 of them. This is the main point: her "believing" also contains a large amount of "disbelieving" about which she may be wrong about. Its a secondary point that her choice of belief was arrived at arbitrarily (born in a certain time and a certain place). - non4prophet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The question is silly, because it supposes a binary solution, right or wrong. This is what Dawkins was trying to illustrate for the girl. It's not a problem of there not being an answer, it's a problem of too many answers for the worlds millions of belief systems. If she is a Christian that believes in people burning in hell for disbelief, then obviously he will be burning in hell for being wrong. The answer of him being wrong about her specific beliefs. But, not even all Christians believe in a literal hell where people burn for eternity. Within Christianity, there are many interpretations of the bible, which in turn has many translations. Then, of course, there are many other religions besides Christianity and their claims about the supernatural. Many of these have consequences for disbelief. Is Dawkins really supposed to go down the list of beliefs and talk about the consequences of disbelief by every possible belief system that has ever existed? Of course not.
Some of the same assumptions are made by Pascals Wager.
* You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
o If God does exist, your loss is infinite: your gain is zero, and you may be punished.
One of the big assumptions is that you know what the will of God is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
@RealHyperX -> Happiness doesn't equal truth. Death doesn't generally make people happy. There are happy Buddhist and they don't believe in God.
@scjones -> Everyone includes you, Dumbass. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18He DID answer the question. His answer was that those who believe do so because of whom they were brought up by, and where they were born, not because of some personal interaction with a god. So, the only reason a Christian is convinced of Christianity's god is because they happened to be born into a Christian family.
- jexdawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You also don't see atheists performing the crusades, starting a war in Iraq, or touching little boys.
To paraphrase George Carlin, "you show me a guy who sits at home watching tv and jerking off, and I'll show you a guy who isn't causing any problems."
Also, you imply that religion is what causes these people to come together and help the community. Maybe thats true - but do you honestly believe that if you removed religion, that all homeless shelters and community help-places would instantly disappear? Implying that Christianity, and the need to "do good to get into heaven", is the only thing that keeps these people together and helpful to each other? Basically, "I'll help you so I look good for Him so I don't go to hell."
Sounds pretty ***** selfish to me. - wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@jdwyz says: "... i believe in religion and what it stands for...the place would be alot better ..."
Ah yes, what we need is more Crusades, Israel/Palestinian conflicts, 9/11s, Northern Ireland bombings (Christian against Christian!), forced conversions, Talibans, ... etc. That'd be a true Utopia. - randroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10He might have done better at revealing the stupidity of that question, but I think it was a reasonable way of dealing with it. The problem is that the question has no answer. It is not a question based on rational premises. If you think someone is wrong, you have to PROVIDE EVIDENCE that he is wrong and ask how that evidence squares with his view. But you can say "maybe you're wrong," without putting forth your own argument, about anything. It accomplishes nothing and is a prescription for chronic doubt and mental paralysis.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Just because you didn't understand the answer doesn't make it poor or weak, nor does it make those of us who understood it blind in our admiration. Expand your mind, you have the capacity to live a full life without the need for the invisible punisher / rewarder in the sky.
- Azertyqsdf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Much better quality videos are available on Richard Dawkins web site: http://richarddawkins.net/home
- happyperson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10All Hail The Great Ju Ju!
- wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@Paladin27 said:
You assume two things you shouldn't:
1) That there is only the Christian God or no God at all. What if you are wrong and one of the Muslim, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Greek Mythology, Scientologists, Pagan's, believers in the great wrathful God called Wonboodoo (I fall into this category), ... etc are right? You've then spent all this time slaving away and may still be suffering at death anyway.
2) You can only be a good person if you are a Christian. What a load of crap. Should I list the good people who weren't Christian and the bad people who were? Religion has got ***** all to do with who treats others well and who doesn't. The most selfless nations on the planet (Scandinavia) are also the least religious. - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"And if you had a son that denies you as his father I am sure you wouldn't feel even just a bit pissed off/disappointed."
Considering my son has never seen me in his whole life. Why should I be pissed if my son denies that I am his father. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@DarknessGP
Do you honestly believe that your belief in the Christian god was not influenced by the fact you are born into a nation which is predominantly Christian? Perhaps you could explain why you didn't become Islamic, or Jewish?
And what was your "real interaction with God."? Just curious.
And what in the world do you mean by "you better be sure that you don't ever met people like me"? It sounds like a threat, but know a good Christian wouldn't do that. - VCAT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Thats good evidence of God, good as any other.
- non4prophet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6To all those complaining about Dawkins "not answering the question"... Do you really want to hear every possible consequence that humanity has come up with for disbelief in this God or this Goddess, or (more likely) do you just want to hear what happens when you don't believe in the supernatural things you believe in? I think you probably already have an answer for this one.
If you want the full context of the video clip, go search for the full version. It's freely available. Youtube and you will find. - non4prophet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes, ANYONE who speaks in ABSOLUTES is a stubborn belligerent person with a huge ego. "Well, he'll be dead and that's the end of that." That's some funny stuff.
I think what the girl just wanted to hear Dawkins say is if he is wrong, he'll burn in hell for eternity and she'll be in heaven with her loved ones. - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6well actually if you are wrong, and the Muslims are right ... dude you'll be in a whole lot of trouble ..
- non4prophet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@bsbdeb
Generally, he's right. Religion is pretty arbitrary, people generally believe what they were brought up to believe. Of course there are exceptions. He's not specifically against Christianity, like you suggest. He's against religious ideas in general. As far as the whole bit about "under threat of their own lives." This still doesn't justify the belief. Just because some people are willing to die for their beliefs doesn't make the beliefs true. - wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@jdwyz
My work blocks that site because it's religious (don't worry, it also blocks Dawkin's site too). But I'm guessing it's all about selflessness, ... etc. Am I wrong? If my guess on the content is right then yes I agree with it. Shock! Horror! How can an atheist believe in selflessness??!? One mistake you and most of the religious make is to assume you've got to believe in a God to believe in taking care of others, charity, and general selflessness. Why is that? I'll repeat what I said in another thread, in a democracy the government generally reflects the will of the people, and the most selfless countries in the world (in terms of charitable contributions as a % of GDP, local health care and education, social security ... etc) are the Scandinavians, who also happen to be the least religious countries on the planet. How do you explain that? To follow your line of reasoning Scandinavia should be the most selfish region on the planet. - insaner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5if i was a christian (which i am) and somebody asked me "what if youre wrong?" i would say "well, i didnt lose anything, and gained happiness and comfort especially in situations where i had no control, or everything seemed to be going wrong.. " if i were an atheist and somebody asked me "what if youre wrong?" i would answer "screw you im not wrong!!" and proceed to make fun of their beliefs and anyone elses.. oh no wait, i wouldnt do that, that was dawkins. i would answer.. well, i dont actually know what i would answer if i was an atheist.. since i dont have the atheist mentality.. i would love to become flame bait and say "if im wrong, im screwed.. " but apparently (and only according to atheists) pascal's wager is a "fallacy" and not worthy of consideration. . so i dont know what i would say..
- vermin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"And what if I'm wrong. I'll be dead just the same and that'll be the end of that. I have faith in the possibility of something greater, but if it turns out I was mistaken than I'll be just as dead as any atheist."
See you're missing the point that Dawkins was making with his answer. Most all religions are mutually incompatible, for example both Islam and Christianity cannot be right. What Dawkins was saying was that, assuming you're an adherant to one particular faith, then you run the risk of being thrown into the fiery pits of hell to be tortured by Hades, or Allah, or whatever other God you happened not to have worshipped.
So in fact, no subscribing to one faith does not mean that you'll be just rotting in the ground if you're wrong, it could also mean an eternity in hell. Christians are just like atheists, in that they run that risk of being wrong about all other religions, the only difference is atheists take it one religion further. - johnnykwest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Of course they will then say that believing without proof is what faith is all about. Hmm.
I find it disturbing that people just can't seem to summon enough courage to just say 'I don't know'. There *might* be a creator of everything, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. But I haven't seen any evidence to absolutely disprove the existence of one either. So I don't currently believe either.
It's completely and utterly feasible that something created all this (including an evolutionary system, the universe etc..), but believing that current religions (christian, muslim, jewish, take your pick) are somehow *any* more valid that Aztec, Viking, Greek mythologies of previous periods is beyond me.
- ignign0kt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5A smart man once said "When you understand why you don't believe in other peoples' gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours."
- totallyspotless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the earth and the universe are a dead give away -aren't they? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore , by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh that was easy ," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
The Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy -
Show 51 - 100 of 221 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is