What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
266 Comments
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -14/+98Really his message is quite simple... religion is fine provided it doesn't impede on things such as science (evidence), rational thought, foreign policy... and so long as it doesn't cause conflict/wars or poison children's minds with falsities (no the world is not 5000 years old, idiot).
But the problem is that these things ARE happening. So if atheists and rational thought won't challenge this powerhouse known as religion, then who will?
edit: @ dancpsu .... he is feeling threatened by religion (or more so sees the world as being in danger of religion as a whole), as many other people are. Too much power is in the hands of a group who believe in the supernatural and take the Bible as the truth despite the lack of evidence. - Rapax, on 10/12/2007, -9/+73Dawkins is one of the great minds of today. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find him on a future list of 'great thinkers' and fathers of modern day life.
- DailyPoetry, on 10/12/2007, -10/+72Here's Dawkins in his own words. Worth reading.
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -9/+54dancpsu, do you live under a rock?
I'm pretty sure religion has had an influence in these areas to name just a few (please point me out if I'm wrong): stem cell research, abortion, a lot of the current wars in the Middle East, evolution being taught in schools, spread of AIDS in Africa (condoms didn't go down too well with many religions in the world for a while), gay marriages.... etc.... - thescimitar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48I appreciate having Richard Dawkins as a counterpoint to the Falwells and Robertsons of the religious world. I might not agree with everything he says, or the way in which he sometimes presents himself, but it's rare, in my opinion, for those of us who are non-believers (or at least non-fundamentalists) to have a voice as loud and catalytic as those on the far, far Right.
Atheists absorb a lot of ridicule and evangelism from fundamentalists, and contrary to the ceaseless war-cry of "We're being repressed!" by those in the far Right, those outside of the faithful endure a lot of personal attacks and general loathing. - verb0ten, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Not only that, but he has the balls to speak his mind.
To me, this is becoming all the more important these days. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46"The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning."
Reason is the "devil" to those who are true believers.
I have observed many exceedingly "faithfull" people and the common denominator that I have observed is this:
Limited exposure to a variety of concepts, ideas, and experiences. Most all of this said group is geographically isolated for long periods of time with little exposure to new people/places.
I wonder if their strong "faith" in supernatural beings is simply their desire to create a world that is more stimulating and interesting than their own. Imagining a dreamworld is certainly easier then actually creating a real world.
Humans are creative...the desire to create is fundamental and when we are unable or unwilling to create a measurable reality then we creat imaginary ones.
If God created everything then who created God?
I drink so as to make others more interesting? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38@Dawkins: (!Applause!)
- organon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41@dancspu
You of course conviniently leave out that religious groups are exemped from taxes, that their lobby in all gouvernmental institutions (at least in the US) is highly influential ...
Religion os basically like racism or misogyny or nationalism ... beliefs that were defining throughout history in the thinking of most people, beliefs that made them stand together with those that they deem alike, and most importantly, makes them feel more important and comfortable with themselves and their simple world. And a racist/misogyn/nationalist doesn't see all the evil his belief does, since it is not evil to him, just as a religous person doesn't see all the evil his belief does, since it is not evil to him.
But religion must be abolished and fought whereever you encounter it, just like racism and misogyny and nationalism.
Someone should do some studies. I bet there is a high correlation between misogyny, racisim, nationalism and religion. Because in the end it is the same mindset. - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38It's always funny seeing people quote the bible as if it proves the unprovable. No few words speaking the affirmative without any sort of reality based substance behind it is literally an empty meme (This one in particular has a lot of hosts).
What most people do when they do this is appealing to authority. Majority truth isn't the best way to understand or verify truth. In fact in many respects, it is usually the majority truth that is the first to go when science and critical thought comes to fruition. - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38Religion is outlawed? Religion doesn't have that much voice? Do you ever wonder why that the top 5% richest Americans are overwhelmingly Episcopalian? Do you ever wonder why Baptist and Fundamentalists are usually the most poor and the most malleable? Do you ever wonder why massive campaigns (Faith Based Initiative) are government funded and spread throughout the country on our taxes dollar? Do you ever wonder why we have had an Abstinence only initiative for the last few years which has directly increased STDs and birthrates among schools that practice them.
And these are just mild, more elusive examples on how we are shaped by religion, whether we like it or not. We could talk about our President's sense of religious justice going to war with oil drenched fingers. Or the impediment of AIDs treatment in Africa to soothe a few evangelicals hearts. Religion is one of (If not the most) the most powerful institutions ever to exist, which still dictates most power in developing and developed countries. Don't downplay religion's significance. It is on par with the power of money. - BenHanby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35His logic is piercing, and he doesn't tiptoe around religious sensibilities. In the spectrum of discourse today, you may reasonably call this approach abrasive. It could also be called bold and uncompromisingly honest; a much-needed counterweight to the power of dogma.
- blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36"God exists outside of space, time, reality, logic, reason..."
"The seven 'days' of creation really meant millions of years...but Adam and Eve really happened at the end of those million years..."
"God just made those rocks that way."
"The light from those stars were artificially sped up during the creation process"
"I don't know where the dinosaurs came from"
And the all accompassing "That wasn't meant to be taken literally"
I'm not quite sure how these people can take themselves seriously. - thescimitar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33And as for religion being "...practically outlawed from the public square..." dancpsu, simply turn on your television or go shopping during the holiday season. I haven't seen many "Atheist-day Sale!" signs, have you?
By my count, religious channels far outnumber science channels from my cable provider, and the economic and political calendar is marked mostly by religious practice. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Religion is not outlawed in the public square, that's silly. Who was the last non-Christian President of the US again? In Texas, the Bill of Rights says:
"RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
So, all public atheists are excluded from holding public office since they refuse to acknowledge this Supreme Being. - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28When people mention Occam's Razor it's usually under the context of, "What is the simplest answer I can understand". I had a little argument with a Islamic individual that was handing out pamphlets out at my University. I always enjoy giving people a warning before I unleash the raging atheist out on people but he insisted. He used the argument that all we have in order to understand the universe is the examples and the experience we have on this earth. And I rebutted that why should all of the Universe be a construct of our experiences, the lowest common denominator of what we can understand. And he continued fervently, "How can you not think about the Universe and not think about a God that loves us."
That's where I really thought about Occam's Razor. It will always be the easiest answer when it is shaped by however, our social boundaries dictate it to be. If I conclude with a million possibilities that is simplest to our current understanding, then that would be applicable to Occam's Razor.
The thing about Occam's Razor though, it states that if two valid explanations or hypotheses or theories are equally valid, then choose the simplest one. The problem with religion is that it has yet to be validated. Of course cultural majority rule could be implied but how can our small sphere of ignorance dictate the phenomenon of the universe let alone the beginning of it. Science has observed the Universe expanding, thus concluded the pinpoint on which it began. Religion has not done that. Science has observed pictures of the first few images of the birth of the Universe. Religion has not done that. Over these centuries of accumulating evidence, science has THEN purported a hypothesis. Religion has claimed it to be because we feel that it "Must" be. How can what we want, or must accept to continue on any sort of explanation for the origin of the universe.
Religion has not validated itself. It can not be accepted within Occam's Razor when considering the origin of the universe, let alone the myriad of other details forged by social progression and historical events (Wars REALLY shaped the way religion was originated.)
And my biggest pet peeve. Why does everybody use our small sphere of existence as proof of God. "When I look at a flower I just think of a creator". If anything that proves that the thought of God is expressly human and expressly earthly. - treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32^ Then why can't the universe as a whole exist outside the construct of time? ... since there is no beginning and end, the universe has always and will always be there without the need for some "God"
- CompIsMyRx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32If the church had its way, we'd still believe the Earth was the center of the universe and that spirits caused disease.
- Lobut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26@azzageddi
Actually, unless you have examples, I'm inclined to believe otherwise.
I feel atheists are too reserved about the way they feel about religion. Granted it's different on the Internet where anonymity is so easy. - jmcv, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27I agree. However, the fact that he is considered a great thinker at this time speaks volumes about the general state of mind of many people. In reality, all he is doing is stating facts and logic that SHOULD be adopted by everyone, and considering this is seen as extraordinary, it is quite worrying.
- steveoco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Dawkins is one of the clear minds of today.
Religion is Grey smoke in between truth and fantasy. It's a shame so many people can't see through the smoke. - numlok, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Also, as another example of the undue power given religion, and as Dawkins mentions: As a secular American, you can present the draft board with as much documentation and personal history attesting to your beliefs in pacifism and non-violent conflict resolution as you like, yet still get sent to boot camp, however, invoke the all-powerful "mojo" of religion by revealing that your parents were Quakers, and you're off the hook in a jiffy.
Sounds nice... - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20The day I condone that christians teach creation "science" in my country on grounds of equality with science, is the day I demand that satanists, cthulhu worshippers, aztecs, scientologists, islamic fundamentalists, buddists, wiccans and aboriginal dreamtime-worshippers also receive their chance to lecture in equal measure, without protest or bloodshed from any side.
- verb0ten, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21It seems he is against religion which impedes rational thought.
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21maybe he's repeating himself because people aren't getting it
- tripfactor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Without religion war would be a harder sell. It is much easier to convince the masses that your enemies deserve to die because they are heathens who refuse to supplicate themselves to the truth of your god, than it is to just be honest and admit what you really want to do is to steal their land and wealth for yourself.
When there is a self-revising, self-correcting religion that adjusts to new and better understandings concerning reality then things may change. But as long as there is some old guy in Rome with a funny who keeps telling the AIDS stricken nations of the 3rd world that condoms are bad the intellectuals will have problems with it. As they should.
It is not why or how you believe, it is what you believe. If you believe stupid things, then you are stupid for it, no matter what you happen to think about it yourself.
99% of religion is stupid thinking. 1% is common sense accessible by anyone with a brain. - nightchrome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19He has said on a few occasions that he is primarily against fundamentalism.
He has no problem with people who want to "delude themselves", so long as they don't push that on others. - XatM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@dancpsu
You reckon even a 'superuniverse' of greater complexity that ours could rival the complexity of an omnipotent, omnicognisent, omnipresent god? The complexity of any multicellular organism is staggering. Can you imagine how complex God's gotta be? He's like a universe + free will + unimaginable intelligence + the biggest beard ever + the power to create anything he wants + 'outside the construct of time'.
No 'superuniverse' can step to that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28Why do I get a feeling that Dawkins might be assassinated by the church?
- Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Agreed, hes explained that in a way that isn't too biased towards science. It does annoy me when people ignore the fact that evolution did occur. And there is lots of things to back it up, fossils to say the least.
- picturesnstuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17To those who would argue the corner of their religion (whichever that may be), I would suggest reading The God Delusion. It will test your faith.
If you come out the far end still believing what you believe, fine, and your faith will only be stronger. Hopefully, you'll have a better understanding of it and why there are those of us that find it impossible to believe the same.
Another excellent read is your own holy book. If you're a staunch Christian for example, read the Bible. The whole of it. It's probably the single book that will make you the most critical of your religion.
My personal favourite argument against any particular religion is that if you'd been brought up in a different country with a different religion, you'd almost certainly passionately believe in that one and not the one that you now do. Religion defined by geography: doesn't sound quite right does it :) - cruzlee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I've the experience that when Christians become really honest, they tell you they believe because they don't want to live in a world that is just about reproduction and gene selection.
The 'God delusion' to quote dawkins himself is thus a way to evade the most inconvenient truth of all: We humans are intrinsically worthless. However, as Daniel Dennett reasons, there are ways to take this cold truth and the situation we are in, and make it better in spite of our genetic programming. Evolution doesn't care about us, but we can add what is inherently absent by choice!
But in the end, can we really do without lies? I hope we can, but I'm not very confident about it. - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Unlike Bible and the Church, which evolve all the time ... whoops.
- KenOh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Wow, someone (i.e. dancspu) hasn't seen Jesus Camp yet.
- verb0ten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14FYI, the "God is dead" quote is originally attributed to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead - Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16You just don't get it do you?
Religion is based on fear, not reason. He fears for the state of humanity if it carries on with this stupidity. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Science Damn you, Dawkins!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@kmk2006 ""If God created everything then who created God?"
God exists outside of the construct of time.
Revelation 22:13 - "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.""
Try saying that without resorting to scripture soundbites. Guess what, you can't! - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15That's not bad for a quadruped. You gotta check your mirrors, just the side of your eye.
--Bill Murray - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11And how can you say materialism isn't based on anything when it bases MOST of our understanding of our current situation. Did the Enlightenment come from some existential non-material circumstance on earth? No, more and more elites had the possibility to devote their time to learning the workings of the world through monetary access. A purely material event. Thus most of our philosophical thoughts manifested from this physical progression. How can you say that materialism isn't based on anything when the material world shapes our understanding of our current position on this planet. Whether it be the scientists or the lowly individual. Religious thought is spread by material conquest of different nations. The affect is endless. Of course with ABSOLUTE materialism there would just be inanimate reality without our thoughts seeping through. But I think we're talking about humanity's thinking process not the whole of nature's phenomena.
- nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"People subtly believe that morality is for their own choosing. That is what the fruit let us do, and we judged right and wrong without authority."
Wow - you believe the whole garden of paradise and magical fruit of knowledge tree thing? Can you explain why your god bothered to make the fruit in the first place? What was it for?
"God can do things that are morally wrong for people to do for the same reason that murder is wrong but capital punishment is not."
Well now that depends on where you're from. I could argue that capital punishment is wrong - at least we've had the sense to move past it in the UK.
Of course, the real issue is that there is no evidence that your god has done anything at all. But people have certainly committed atrocities in the name of your god using very similar thinking to the kind you show. - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11And that is EXACTLY my point. My position does not bear any sort of burden of proof because it is essentially a non stance. It is only when in pursuit of questions such as “What is after death”, do we become on the same bar as green gummybears moving in all of the subatomic particles. How can my non claim be the same as a claim of superstition? The claim of God is much more on par with green gummybears than just simply questioning to validity in pursuing essentially unanswered and ultimately unanswerable questions. How can you claim that the the progression of realistic understanding to be a made-up materialistic mindset. How can a materialistic mindset be “made-up” within the context of which you're referring. Are you implying that questions that subvert reason and reality to be more significant and “useful” than the progression that we have actually observed?
I did not claim that nothing metaphysical exist. I was just questioning the validity of the questions that you postulated. My position was expressly neutral. I doubt I'll ever claim that anything metaphysical does not exist. - pixelate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Agreed, Rapax. The only question at this point is whether to join the United Atheist Alliance (UAA) or the Allied Athiest Allegiance (AAA).
Choose wisely, friends. Praise science. - changyang1230, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@dancpsu
The fact that I am replying to you with an intelligible language now, proves that I have a mind.
Oh wait... you didn't even define "mind" in your question. - qazxsw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11rtfa
"Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds. Non-fundamentalist, "sensible" religion may not be doing that. But it is making the world safe for fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years, that unquestioning faith is a virtue." - WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I am a secularist who has wondered why Dawkins is hostile towards religion. Although I enjoyed the article and Dawkins make some really good points, he only makes a case against religious fundamentalism, not religion in general. I am hostile towards religious fundamentalism as well, but I still see no problem with my intelligent, religious friends who are not fundamentalists.
- Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10How does questions such as those validate religion, or better yet, how has religion gone about alleviating those questions rather than just configuring human's thoughts to believe them. Almost all of the results of religion has come from elites that view it as so which then trickles down to the average person, mainly for control purposes. How is that any advancement in those areas? And those questions like, "What is consciousness", is pretty much already "explained" in a way, such as the construction of consciousness and whatnot. It's usually just our prideful view of ourselves that ends up with us thinking that our complicated ability to think is something beyond ourselves. One good reason why we'll most likely NEVER have an answer to those questions is because those questions are forged by our imagination, rather than an end result of natural circumstance. The question "What happens to us after we die", is a prime example of our overactive imagination. Why does there need to be something after we die?
Not to say that I have a detailed philosophical liturgy on the absolute truth on consciousness. Just asking how religion has done anything to placate these problems within reality rather than within our minds. - 256byteram, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"Then why can't the universe as a whole exist outside the construct of time?"
This is one of my personal arguments against God. If God is absolutely perfect, then why would he make corruptible, selfish and utterly imperfect beings? Surely he can do better if he is so perfect. I understand a counterargument to this would be the Garden of Eden story - where everything is perfect. But humans get kicked out. He still made corruptible and therefore imperfect beings!
Another one I like is proof through lack of evidence. God is unprovable, therefore people believe in him/it. It is faith. Simply believing in God for the fact that you can't prove he/it doesn't exist is sheer madness.
On something else entirely, I recommend The Root of All Evil for those who like Richard Dawkins and The Atheism Tapes for good arguments and insights on the matter. - nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Whenever I see Dawkins speak or read his stuff, I end up feeling sorry for him. He so obviously wants to believe in God but can't reconcile his modern scientific beliefs with the notion. So he goes around yelling and spitting, begging someone to come and prove him wrong."
Saying this leads me to believe that you haven't actually read any of his material whatsoever. He's making a stand against irrational religious beliefs that threaten to sabotage scientific education. If you read 'The God Delusion' and think it's written by someone who really desires belief in religious dogma then there's really no hope for you.
"Unfortunately I think he's barking up the wrong tree. Enlightment has to come from yourself."
Well that didn't make any sense. Do you think everybody is looking for enlightenment? Can you even define what it is? - treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Are you trying to say that our Universe is within a "super-universe"?
...I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that our entire Universe looking at it as a whole (as one entity in a way) can exist outside of time, thus has always been around.
And as XatM has said, sure our Universe is a very complicated thing... but if a "God" supposedly created it, then it/he must be even more complex.
It's funny how maybe 20 years ago religious people wouldn't be defending their beliefs on a Universal level. Seems to me religion just adapts to keep at least a small portion of "what-if" in the equation.... the Big Bang theory comes out and religion begins to now say, "well who put all the stuff there... obviously God" etc
I find it hilarious. -
Show 51 - 100 of 291 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is