Doubting Dawkinses another breed of fanatic

[rug]

August 27, 2013
Jenna Price

Preaching to the converted. If only people stuck to preaching to the converted. Instead, we have an epidemic of evangelism and I have no idea how to stop it. Send help urgently.

Case 1: It is 6am and in my pathetic attempt to ward off ageing I am at the gym.

It's dark. I'm effing grumpy and sitting uncomfortably on what personal trainers call recumbent bikes.

They are designed for old women who broke their coccyxes in childbirth and need lower back support. OK, I made that up.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/doubting-dawkinses-another-breed-of-fanatic-20130826-2sm3c.html

[panzerfaust]

1. At least Dawkins does not attempt to disenfranchise, kill, or imprison those who do not agree

''It's almost an insecurity and a hatred of religions without acknowledging the many benefits faith can bring, '' Loewenstein says. "[The new atheists] ignore the fact that for billions of people around the world, religion brings hope." {From OP Article}

Of course, for many around the world the hope brought by religion is captured in President Bush the First's statement that:

I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.

Right here in my home state of Texas the law is (emphasis added) quite clear that:

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.

Christians discussing points of theology with those with whom they disagree: I guess actions such as this, and the above, are some of the reasons why I find Dawkins "evangelism" less of a threat than that of the religious.

[rug]

2. From the article:

My view is that atheist evangelists might not yet be threatening to blow up buildings or mount terrorism attacks but they are certainly spreading a lot of hate and intolerance, which is precisely what they say religions do.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. That quote does show she's an idiot

"might not yet be threatening to blow up buildings or mount terrorism attacks"? She can fuck off.

[cbayer]

8. She can fuck off? Wow, touch a nerve there?

There are growing numbers of atheists that want Dawkins to sit down and shut up. Are they all idiots or are they saying something valid?

Your rather violent response to this rather benign piece of writing may actually make her point for her.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. No, saying 'fuck her' is not violent; her saying others are not *yet* violent

shows she's willing to slander others with no evidence whatsoever just to bolster a poor argument. She appears to get paid for that tosh - it's in a newspaper, anyway. To anyone who implies others are going to become violent, with no indication of that whatsoever, and who do that for money, I say "fuck them". The writing is not 'benign'. It's rubbish, but that implication that one day atheists are going to turn violent is ridiculous. We don't say it about Roman Catholics, although they put out huge amounts of stuff on the internet about how they know God exists.

[cbayer]

11. I'm afraid she is speaking for many, Muriel, and they are getting louder.

You may not agree with her and choose instead to cling to the old crowd with their anti-theistic bluster and hater, but she is part of a growing faction that wants to distance themselves from that.

If you have seen some of the stuff posted on reddit or sent to some of the prominent female atheists, then I don't see how you can deny that there is an undercurrent of hostility bordering on violence in parts of the atheist community. This is certainly a small faction and not representative, but I can't blame people for wanting to separate themselves from it.

Do you think that atheists are less likely to be violent than religious people?

I liked the article and happen to agree with her. The girl on the exercise bike and Dawkins have more in common than they do differences. Both think they are right and that you need to join their team.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks he's right, and that you need to join his team

Your father thinks he's right, and that you need to join his team. Practically every religious person thinks they're right, and that you need to join their team. But most of them don't get called 'evangelical', and no-one bothers writing columns saying it's bad that they talk about it in public, on the internet.

The woman in the gym injected a plea for religion into a completely non-religious place, where the writer did not want to leave, and could not make the woman leave. That is extremely different from writing something on the internet, which people read if they want to.

There are undoubtedly violent or threatening atheists around, just as there are violent or threatening people of all types. But this woman isn't talking about separating herself from them; she's talking about Dawkins, who is not violent or threatening. You appear to be trying to change the subject. If we were discussing something some well-known religious person had said (say, "Catholic bishop stumps for the Republican party&quot , we wouldn't say "well, Catholics haven't yet turned violent, but they are certainly spreading a lot of hate and intolerance", and then follow it up with "there is an undercurrent of hostility bordering on violence in parts of Catholicism". We might call him an idiot, as rug did.

[cbayer]

14. That's exactly the point. Dawkins is behaving like an evangelical religious leader.

Articles are posted here all the time about pushy, hateful and even bigoted evangelicals that post on the internet.

Did you happen to see the tee shirt Dawkins wears in the image attached to his "explanation" for his latest tweet about Muslims?



If I were trying to make the case that I wasn't a bigot, I probably wouldn't choose that picture. The clear implication is that religious people are diseased and need to be cured. That's pretty hateful. He is definitely spreading hate and intolerance, imo, and I am glad to see some significant push back.

He's not that different than those that do it from the other side and none of them do anything to further the goals I think we mostly share.

[rug]

15. I'd love to see you make a proof that that statement equals idiocy.

Come now, muriel, we're all about proof here, not unsupported claims.

[okasha]

37. You got to the "Burn the heretic"

post quite promptly on this one. Congratulations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Your worldview is so limited, you think any disagreement means someone

regards the other person as a 'heretic'. I feel sorry for the narrowness of your experience.

[okasha]

54. I was referring to the penchant

of atheists on this site to attack without mercy any other atheist who expresses disapproval of Dawkins. It's rather amusing, actually. I do feel sorry for the narrowness of your sense of irony, though.

[cbayer]

60. I think that's too broad. There are atheists on the site that have also raised

objections to Dawkins.

There is a small group who I think would defend him no matter what he did or said, but I think they are in the minority here - just very visible and vocal.

[okasha]

63. I didn't mean to imply that all DU atheists

are heretic burners. Just the ones who would apparently defend Dawkins if he ate a live baby on TV.

[cbayer]

65. Thanks for clarifying.

He's definitely got a diehard following both here and elsewhere and they are anti-theists, imo.

They appear to have little tolerance for atheists who don't share that POV.

No true Scotsman and all that, lol.

[Brettongarcia]

134. Isn't that a prejudiced example?

First that is a hypothetical. Furthermore, not too likely. In Logic you are creating and beating a "straw man."

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. This proves my point - you think that because the writer is an atheist, I shuold hold back

from attacking them when they say something stupid. I would say the same whether they were atheists, believers or agnostics. I didn't attack her for saying something 'non-atheistic', but for an unwarranted assumption that some atheists will turn violent at some point in the future.

I think you must be more tribal than me.

[okasha]

105. No, what I think is that Dawkins' fans

have become so invested in him that they will defend him without question and at all costs even against reasonable, and rationally stated, criticism from within the atheist community. It's clear that for many he can do no wrong.

Of course I'm more tribal than you, unless you're a Scot. Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band, to be specific. But since you didn't know that, any more than you know what I think, I'll give the slur a one-time pass.

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. And you haven't been following the thread

What you characterised as me saying 'burn the heretic' was not about Dawkins - it was a slur on 'evangelical atheists' in general - that they will some day become violent. And it's not a "reasonable, and rationally stated, criticism" that she made.

Well, I am part-Scottish, but 'tribal' isn't an insult, especially when you look at the context. So your attempt to play the victim has failed.

[okasha]

108. What I characterized as your "burn the heretic" post

is a fairly typical response in this group to any criticism of Dawkins by another atheist. So is misquotation. The author of the column did not claim that "evangelical atheists" will some day become violent, any more than cbayer ever said she wished Dawkins dead--the latter a twist put on her words by one of the usual suspects who seems to have left us, at least temporarily.

You also mischaracterize my post as an "attempt to play the victim." I suggest again that you have a difficulty discerning and responding to irony.

[okasha]

35. Torcaso.

n/t

[rug]

43. Touche.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488

[Jim__]

3. "... atheist militants are not much of an advertisement for a world ... meant to be more tolerant...

Loewenstein is a Jewish-born atheist, so it is not as if he is carrying a flag for the God team. But, as he points out, atheist militants are not much of an advertisement for a world which, without God, is meant to be more tolerant and harmonious.

Amen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. So she's a follower of Dawkins on Twitter, but she objects when he tweets?

I don't think she understands what 'evangelising' means.

Case 2: I am having an enjoyable 30 minutes browsing the internet when Richard Dawkins pops up. He has decided to let me know, via Twitter, that: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."

I am reading his tweets and wondering what the hell is this about.

On Sunday night he was at it again. "Your God created the laws of physics, controls ten thousand billion billion stars. But what he really cares about is who you sleep with," he tweeted.

I'm baffled, then I recognise the beaming girl on the bicycle. Yes, Dawkins is an evangelical atheist who is determined to demean other religions so you can be persuaded by his.

Now, we all know that Twitter does not implement pop-up windows that send tweets to people at random. So this must mean Price decided to follow Dawkins on Twitter, and is then surprised when one of his tweets appears on her screen.

Or Dawkins' tweet 'popped up' because Price was, as she says, 'browsing the Internet' - looking for things that people say. She found something that linked to Dawkins' tweet - something, I suspect, that was talking about religion, or atheism, or one of the endless parade of tedious internet forum threads expressing their revulsion of Richard Dawkins. Using the internet to record and communicate your views to those who choose to read them is not 'evangelism'. If Dawkins was giving a talk about biology, and he inserted the remarks about Islamic academia or God and sleeping with people, it would be evangelism. But putting them on Twitter, for people to find them if they want to, is no more evangelism than tweeting "Hooray! Sheffield Wednesday won again! Best football club in the world".

Dawkins was not a 'no-God-botherer' to her in any way. There are millions of people who have made some expression of faith on the internet over the years. Are they all bothering her?

[rug]

16. Oh, you know she objects to what he tweets, not when he tweets.

No one is trying to shut up Dawkins. Sorry you dislike criticism of what he does say.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. cbayer wants him to shut up

And the Australian writer has stooped to smearing him by talking in the article, supposedly about him, about 'evangelist atheists' not 'yet' being violent, as if she can see a future in which they are (and that's what makes her an idiot, by the way).

But also, she's an idiot because of the false equivalence of the women who starts trying to recruit her in the gym - a public place she doesn't want to leave - and Dawkins, who wrote something on the internet that she willingly looked at. She says he 'popped up', and that he was bothering her. She seems to think that anything he says on the internet is an intrusion into her life.

[rug]

20. You can take that up with her.

It is not, however, the position of the author. She's made a well-stated criticism, regardless of whether or not you consider it a smear.

BTW, reciting an alleged logical fallacy is not providing evidence of fact, only of your opinion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Evidence of fact? I thought you were joking

You called a public figure an idiot yourself here, a day or two ago. I never imagined you thought you were "providing evidence of fact".

No, it's a crappily-stated opinion. That's why I'm attacking it. She does think that Dawkins stating opinions on the internet is a bad thing, and says he is bothering her in the way the woman in the gym did (to whom she said "please don't do this again", so she seems to want him to shut up too. She calls it "an epidemic of evangelism", says she has "no idea how to stop it" but wants help doing so. She says "give me stuff to read and hear and see", but when Dawkins does that on the internet, she complains about it, and gets paid for it. It's a turd of a column.

[rug]

24. I have no problem confusing fact from opinion.

I take it, then, that you consider your statement that she's an idiot to be purely your opinion.

[cbayer]

21. So do some atheist bloggers - quite a few actually.

He's divisive at a time when many want to form coalitions and work together with others.

Dawkins wrote something intentionally inflammatory and got a lot of press for doing it. If one were interested in atheism, one would have surely seen it whether they were signed up for his tweets or not. I saw it almost immediately and I was not looking.

Like it or not, he has put himself out there as a leader and a spokesperson. Anyone, of course, has the right to respond to what he says publicly, but if one is an atheist and being swept up into his camp, they may have a particular interest in responding.

It would be like people linking your average christian with the most vocal leaders of the religious right. It is sometimes important to push back against that and show that they don't represent you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. No, he's not right wing, and that's another smear

Dawkins, like Glenn Greenwald, is someone that certain DUers love to make endless ad hominems about. He is not the equivalent of "the most vocal leaders of the religious right". He is a major scientist and author, whose position on human rights is in the mainstream of DU. His political views are pretty comparable with the present and most recent Archbishops of Canterbury. I'd say they're closer to yours than the average American Christian's are.

[cbayer]

26. Where did I say he was right wing?

I don't like Dawkins, never have. I don't like anti-theists in general. I don't like anti-atheists either.

He hasn't made his fortune or reputation off his science. He's made it off his anti-theism which is decidedly unscientific, imo. It's a philosophy at best, a creed at worst.

His position on basic human rights might be in the mainstream for the most part, but not when it comes to religion. It is not mainstream to say that believers are delusional and that religion poisons everything and that religious beliefs are like a disease.

We may share some political views, but he has thick and distorting sexist and anti-theist lenses on. He runs counter to what I am trying to accomplish.

But he can keep on talking and tweeting. It's leading to his marginalization.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. He made his reputation off his science

You have heard of The Selfish Gene, haven't you? Over a million copies sold, and it got "30th anniversary" articles written about it. He wrote several bestselling books about evolution after that too. He was Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science for 13 years (a post that was explicitly created for him, in 1995).

"It would be like people linking your average christian with the most vocal leaders of the religious right". You're comparing him with right wingers. The ones who are homophobic, and support right wing causes. But that's the comparison you choose, because you want to make him look bad. His 'sexism' is nowhere near as extreme as all the popes we've had, for instance - he has been dismissive of the argument among atheists about behaviour at conferences, but he did so by saying some women face far worse problems; not a friendly way to put it, and not a good argument (you shouldn't say "ignore all problems apart from the biggest of all&quot , but it pales in comparison to the official Vatican line of no contraception, no abortion, no female priests, and any time women try to organise as a force in the RC church, they are kicked down like the American nuns.

Dawkins could, again, be compared with an Archbishop of Canterbury - who still haven't got their act together on women bishops, but have a relatively liberal view about women, compared with many religious sects. But you compare him to the religious right.

[cbayer]

29. I had never heard of him until he went anti-theist.

He may have been known within the British scientific community and at Oxford, but that is not where he achieved his international fame. And his later writings on religion are not scientifically based at all.

I am comparing his tactics to the religious right, not his politics.

So, he's not as bad as some? That makes it ok? Well, I'm a sexist, but the pope is worse.

If I wear a t-shirt that says, "Atheism. Together we can find the cure", what am I saying?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. He was famous in the worldwide scientific community

He was the leading exponent of the 'gene-centered' view of evolution, and one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world. He is one of the best-selling scientific authors, worldwide, there has been.

[cbayer]

31. Well, as I have said, I think he provided a service in kicking

down some doors for atheism.

But, like his scientific career, I think that time may have passed.

[pokerfan]

33. *You* had never heard of him...

Therefore, no one had ever heard of him. QED

The book was extremely popular when first published, caused "a silent and almost immediate revolution in biology" and continues to be widely read. It has sold over a million copies, and has been translated into more than 25 languages.

[cbayer]

36. I didn't say no one had ever heard of him.

He apparently was well known within the British scientific community, of which I am not a member.

I would guess that most people outside that community were not familiar with him either. A million copies is hardly a best seller, and I would bet that most of those were to students.

Rick Warren's book has sold 25 million copies. Sadly, that is extremely popular.

[pokerfan]

39. It was an international best-seller

though you probably wouldn't find it in your local Christian bookstore.

[cbayer]

44. Probably not in the Christian bookstores, that's for sure.

It was written right around the time I was studying genetics as an undergraduate, but not used in my courses. Maybe if I had gone on to study genetics as a graduate student, I would have been exposed to it.

But, honestly, I don't think people became familiar with him until his writings on religion.

And, frankly, I think most people probably still aren't familiar with him.

[pokerfan]

61. I still have an early edition

and I'm an engineer, not a biologist. But it was always featured in the popular science sections of bookstores back then.

[cbayer]

62. I was overwhelmingly preoccupied with my studies at that time and that may

be why I missed it.

I have withdrawn my previous statements based on the data provided.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. In Time's All-Time Top 100 Nonfiction Books

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/08/30/all-time-100-best-nonfiction-books/slide/the-selfish-gene-by-richard-dawkins/

So, again, no, not just the British scientific community.

Have you heard of Stephen Jay Gould?

[cbayer]

55. Well, that's something.

Incidentally, I've read 7/10 of the books listed in the science category of that list.

It may be a factor of when it was released, as I was deeply involved in finishing my undergraduate then starting my post-graduate work. I may have just missed it, as my reading list was more than a little full.

So, I will withdraw my earlier comments based on the evidence provided.

I stil don't have to like him, lol.

[okasha]

40. Somehow I don't think

Dan Brown and John Grisham feel Dawkins breathing down their necks.

[okasha]

38. Where's that pic

with the blubbering fan and "Leave Paris Alone!" when we need it?

[rug]

45. This one?

[okasha]

46. Thanks!

The very one.

[pokerfan]

69. This one?

[edhopper]

6. Do I even need to point out what is wrong with this quote

Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2013, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

"It's almost an insecurity and a hatred of religions without acknowledging the many benefits faith can bring, '' Loewenstein says. "[The new atheists] ignore the fact that for billions of people around the world, religion brings hope."

When to the atheists, it is a false hope based on belief in non-existent deities?

Enduring a life of misery because of the false hope of an afterlife isn't something we should promote.

Woman accepting a life of subjugation because "God wants it" isn't a positive thing.

[rug]

17. Surely you realize Lowenstein was not referring to atheists who find hope in religion.

The difference between Lowenstein and Dawkins is that the former has no compulsion to obsess on their "false hope based on belief in non-existent deities".

[edhopper]

27. I mean to an atheist

the hope that others have in an afterlife is a false hope, since such a thing doesn't exists.

So I don't see the benefit of keeping people in a state of ignorance where they "feel better".

She is asking atheist to accept these false beliefs as a good thing, since they bring false hope (how could a proclaimed atheist think the hope is real if there is no afterlife)

So no I don't acknowledge the benefit.

[rug]

42. I don't think she's asking atheists to accept religious beliefs.

She's saying something more sensible and more humane: accept that others believe.

There is something chilling about having some determine what is acceptable for others to believe.

[edhopper]

47. I understand what she is saying, and I know she is not saying that.

Obviously I haven't been clear.
She is saying atheist should accept that belief in something that is not real has benefits.
I am saying that this atheist doesn't accept that in total, the perceived benefits outweigh the harm.

[rug]

50. To be precise, she is saying that many believers receive benefit from their beliefs.

I don't think she's imputing causality.

You are, of course, free to believe otherwise.

[edhopper]

53. No she is not saying that

If she was saying "I believe many believers receive benefits" that would be one thing.

She is saying other atheist should accept it. Basically give religion a pass because it makes some people feel better.

I am saying this atheist doesn't agree.

The benefit/harm of religion is an ongoing debate here, and some of us come down on the 'more harm" side.

[rug]

59. Where did she say that? Are you making things up?

She does quote Lowenstein as saying

''It's almost an insecurity and a hatred of religions without acknowledging the many benefits faith can bring, '' Loewenstein says. "[The new atheists] ignore the fact that for billions of people around the world, religion brings hope."

which is more in line with my take than yours.

[edhopper]

64. I refer to thiis

"''It's almost an insecurity and a hatred of religions without acknowledging the many benefits faith can bring, '' Loewenstein says. "[The new atheists] ignore the fact that for billions of people around the world, religion brings hope."

Leaving out that she is directed the comment at the 'new atheists" changes the context.

That is my reading of the statement, not her own feelings but how others atheists don't acknowledge this.

Therefor my response.

[rug]

67. Well, we must disagree.

[edhopper]

71. Guess we just have different

readings on the quote.

[LTX]

18. Enduring a life of misery

Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2013, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

with no hope of an afterlife is an unpalatable alternative for many.

[edhopper]

25. So they cling to a falsehood?

Better to believe a lie if it makes you feel better?

Better not to demand a change in your life if the theocratic rulers tell you how to live your life, even it that life is one of suffering?

[LTX]

32. You speak from a position of western privilege.

What you call "believing a lie" is called faith by others. And indeed, for many folks, their faith does "make them feel better," although that dismissive phrasing rather diminishes the role of faith, for many, in making sense of the inexplicability of life and suffering.

As for your "demanding a change in your life," surely you are not suggesting that atheism is the cure for poverty, hunger, and suffering.

[edhopper]

34. No

but accepting your plight as God's will doesn't either.

[LTX]

41. Of course not.

But a community of belief is often the difference between despair and hope. And one may discount religious charity, but a community of belief is also, and often, the social web on which survival either depends or is made bearable.

Religious belief is a fact of human existence. We seem to desperately need explanation (why we need explanation is another topic), and religion seems to play a crucial role in filling that need. No doubt we are processing explanations in increasingly non-religious ways (although curiously incorporating increasingly quasi-religious philosophical notions), and the communities on the vanguard of that evolution tend to overlook the still highly relevant role of religion outside of their own sphere. Understanding, without condescension, the role of religious belief in the human psyche, and its rather remarkable persistence, may be a critical aspect of understanding human consciousness itself. I think one should be cautious in dismissing, or denigrating, non-empirical belief and faith, not the least because honest introspection often reveals much of that in even the most ardent of atheists.

[edhopper]

49. Alcohol and drugs are also a way people cope

and we will never end the human penchant to use them
Doesn't mean we should just accept them as a part of life and not help people in their thrall.

[okasha]

52. You do realize that not everyone

who likes alcoholic drinks or even a puff of weed now and then is "in their thrall," don't you? Or are you a prohibitionist?

[edhopper]

56. Of course not. It's called an analogy

try not to be to literal.

So I'll prevent us from getting into a silly back and forth right here.

[okasha]

57. The problem is that it's not a particularly apt analogy.

n/t

[edhopper]

66. Fair criticism

wouldn't expect a person of faith to agree. But the point that something that will always be with us and just because it helps people cope doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing.

[okasha]

68. The point is that in most cases

no intervention is needed.

[edhopper]

70. Depends on how deep

the person is into it.

[LTX]

73. I find this kind off hand dismissal of religious beliefs frustrating.

It is part and parcel of the "religion as disease" meme that is prevalent in much of the superficial atheist movement today, and ironically, it dismisses with equal apathy the very science to which erstwhile atheists otherwise pledge allegiance. There is a great deal of very interesting work being done on the interplay between supernatural beliefs and cognitive development, and it is well worth looking into if you are interested in the topic of human consciousness.

[edhopper]

74. Yes, it was a flip answer

I am aware that religion is a complex human experience, with instinctual components as well as cognitive.

I am also aware that the basis of all religions, the beliefs of the adherents, are not based in reality.

So we have two ways to look at religion, the sociological and anthropological, which seeks why humans have religion and religious beliefs.
And the theological, which looks at the beliefs and tenets of religions.

The first is of great interest, The second is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[LTX]

75. I agree -- to an extent.

I'm not willing to go so far as to say that "the basis of all religions, the beliefs of the adherents, are not based in reality." If by this you are referring to material reality, there is a great deal that could be considered "not based in reality." For adherents, there is a significant reality to belief, and measurable effects on human physiology and psychology. As for the theological side of religion, I don't think it should be discounted quite as much as you. The line between theological precepts and integral societal precepts relating to mores, laws, language, philosophy, and even science isn't really as bright as it sometimes seems.

[edhopper]

77. But that is more of the

sociological science aspect of religion. Religion as a subject of study.

To simplify about theological beliefs, I mean people believe in things, gods and supernatural occurrences, that do not exists.

So we can talk about the complex human organization of religion, or the inherent part that religion plays on the human psyche.

Or we can talk about what people actually believe, and I am saying there is no factual basis for the beliefs.

Intertwining the two only confuses the issue. You can talk about why people believe, but that doesn't give credence to what they believe.

[LTX]

80. With that clarification, I think we are on the same page. n/t

[cbayer]

79. You are aware that the basis for all religion is not based in reality?

And what do you have to back that up?

Who are you to say what is reality and what is not when it comes to a god? Surely, if you have some kind of evidence, you would want to publish it immediately.

It's this kind of statement made without any justification whatsoever that just flies in the face of some people's claim that they have chose the rational, scientific road of reason.

You don't know. Nobody knows. And for you to state something as unequivocal truth is the kind of thing that makes people discount atheists.

[LTX]

83. I think that may be a bit unfair.

I don't think that there is quite the line in the sand being drawn here that you suggest. Empirically, there is no evidence that supernatural events, that is, events that defy known scientific and mathematical precepts, actually occur. To the extent that the subject of religious inquiry is an alleged supernatural event or premise (as opposed to the "reality" of physiological, psychological, or sociological religious effects), there is no current definition of "reality" that would encompass it. This is rather different from the tautological notion that "what is not known is not known" and hence cannot be spoken of definitively. The caveat, of course, is that the expansion, or evolution, of known precepts continues, with an increasing recognition that such expansion will necessarily require philosophical grounding.

[cbayer]

84. Then the member should clarify and not make statements which can so

easily be interpreted as saying that all believers are suffering from some sort of psychiatric disorder. It's uncalled for and just plain wrong.

One could put it as you have or say that people believe in things for which there is no scientific proof.

But to say definitively that something is not so because I don't believe it is malarkey.

And it get said with great authority around her all the time by those with no authority whatsoever.

Sorry if I over-reacted, but it pushes one of my buttons.

[edhopper]

85. I am not and never said

that believer have a disorder. This is a strawman that you continue to throw and it diminishes any argument you might be trying to make.

People of all stripes can have beliefs in things that aren't there without being psychologically impaired.

People believe in UFOs, Ghosts, Esp and trickle down economics. None of them have a basis in reality.

They are mistaken in their beliefs due to a myriad of reasons. A small minority perhaps due to psychological [problems.

Being deluded isn't the same as having schizophrenic delusions.

Most Tea Party members are deluded in their beliefs, few are psychotic.

hopefully you understand this.

[cbayer]

88. You again make the definitive statement "things that are not there".

You have no standing to make that statement. You don't know what is there and what is not. Your reality is not the final word.

Hopefully you understand this.

[edhopper]

91. As far as all facts in evidence

it is simply not there.

If I said the same for various pseudo-scientific claims, creationism, Global Climate Change deniers, ghost hunters, alien abduction aficionados, psychics, etc...

would you protest as well?

I am an atheist, there fore I do not accept the existence of gods. Notice i did not say 'believe'. I have no beliefs when it comes to this.
I don't base it on feelings or faith or intuition, I look at what is known and see not only is there no evidence, but it is counter to what we do know about how the Universe works.

So I stand by my statement these things are not there, do you have the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary?

[cbayer]

93. So you take the position that if there is not facts in evidence that

something (anything?) just doesn't exist?

Well, that's going to put a big kibosh on scientists who are actively exploring things we don't yet know.

Do you think there is no other intelligent life in the many universes? There's no facts in evidence, so may I definitively state that it does not exist?

Look, if you made your argument that there are people that believe in things for which there is not evidence, that would be one thing. But that's not the position you take.

You are an atheist. That's great. You can accept or not accept whatever you wish. The problem I have is your lack of acceptance of others who may perceive the world differently. It doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them different than you.

Of course I have no evidence. If I did, my position would change, but my life probably would not (other than all those accolades for my Nobel Prize). And I would never make a definitive statement about what does and does not exist without having some evidence to back it up.

You, OTOH, seem to be on a mission to be right about this, but, in fact, you will never know (or will you, lol?).

[edhopper]

95. Reiread the part

about contrary to everything we know.

"Many universes" what's that?

There is actually quite a bit of evidence of earthlike or life supporting planets in the galaxy, very different from belief in a supreme being that has shown zero evidence in the last 13.5 billion years. The evidence for there not being one is the all the facts we know about the Universe. It is an antiquated idea, like the Ptolemaic universe, or the four humors that no longer holds any validity in the Universe as we know it. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear.
Saying we don't know everything, so God is possible, with anything to support the notion of God, is just the God of the gaps argument.

I am an atheist, not an agnostic. i don't accept that there is a God, so my defacto position is that believers are wrong.

[cbayer]

97. It is not the de facto position of most atheists that believers are wrong, btw.

Most atheists also take an agnostic position that they really don't know for sure. Even Dawkins has taken that position.

But if you are a gnostic atheist, then I guess your de facto position makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me, but whatever works for you, as long as you don't try to infringe on the liberties of others to believe what they do.

But you don't know and they are not necessarily wrong.

I guess you have also definitively determined that there is only one universe. But if you want to get into the word parsing game, I can do that, too. It's de facto, not defacto.

[edhopper]

102. You seem to be wrong about that too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/de+facto

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de%20facto

[cbayer]

103. So you were talking about the SS Defacto?

You might want to recheck those links.

[edhopper]

107. I am completely in the wrong here

I know it's de facto and read your response to quickly (with a little dyslexia thrown in).
Since I am aware it's de facto and made a typo I didn't realize, I somehow read you to be correcting me to say it's defacto, not visa versa.
Coupled by spellcheck doesn't work in post titles.

So all my bad. Apologies.

BTW was Universes a typo as well, in which case ignore my reply.

[cbayer]

109. I've done the same thing and on more than one occasion.

And sometimes the autocorrect function is my mortal enemy, leading me to say some really incomprehensible things, lol.

"Universes" was somewhat intentional, as I though it presented another area where there is some interestingly different ideas and POV's. The concept of infinity fascinates me. So I just threw that in for fun.

Your thread is actually going pretty well. While not a poll, you are getting some really interesting and thoughtful responses that could lead to valuable conversation.

I think you worded it well and hope it stays out of trouble. I will try to stay out of it, but can't promise anything.

[edhopper]

110. I don't see a problem

with you posting how you feel about the veracity of beliefs or non beliefs of others.

[cbayer]

111. I don't have a position on the veracity of beliefs or non beliefs.

Because I don't know.

[edhopper]

112. Well that is your position

My guess is you hold some spiritual beliefs, but nothing dogmatic, maybe resembling some religion, but not ardent.
But you also aren't sure. A little agnostic but leaning towards there being something there.
You therefor hold the position that you cannot say if you or others are right or wrong.

Am I close?

[cbayer]

113. I've never found a good word to describe where I am (at this time).

Apatheist comes closest - I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't really care if there is a god or not. Whether there is a god or not would probably not change anything about the way I live my life.

OTOH, I find it untenable to believe that we are the most highly evolved thing in the universe. Whether that which is more highly evolved is some kind of god or not is a question that I can't possibly answered, but I would leave the door open to that possibility.

Lastly, I think religion is never going away and can be used as a force for good or evil. I support those that use it for good and oppose those that use it for evil. Thus, I oppose those that uniformly oppose it or advocate for it's abolition or take the position that all religious people are wrong.

So, I guess you are mostly correct in your hypothesis about where I stand.

[edhopper]

114. You thinking about higher evolved species sounds like

Clarke's Law about advanced science.
But I always though no matter how "magical" it might seem, if it is based in the physical world and not supernatural, then it is still science and not magic, no matter how advanced, and we would understand that even if we don't understand the science.

The same with other hypothetical species, they might seem godlike, but they wouldn't be the supernatural beings gods are portrayed as.

I think there are probably other planets with life, some might be very intelligent, but i think the lack of any sign of radio communication anywhere shows that, at least in this galaxy, technologically advanced species are rare or only occur here.

[cbayer]

115. But that doesn't answer the question about whether something higher evolved might

be a god (whatever that means).

Maybe they don't use radios to communicate, lol.

It's all speculation anyway, and very unlikely to have any resolution in my lifetime or yours.

But I continue to doubt that we are it. To me, that just seems illogical - particularly when I sit out at night and look at all those stars.

[edhopper]

116. You could call them gods

but i don't think they meet the supernatural component that almost all believers have in their definition.

There are theories that intelligence leads to destruction, so intelligent species don't last long, what we are doing to earth as a sample of one.

[cbayer]

58. And when alcohol or drugs become a problem for an individual, there

may be a reason to intervene.

But you wouldn't be suggesting prohibition because that happens to some, would you?

[edhopper]

78. So a moderate amount

of clouding the mind can be a good thing?

I guess you feel the same about religion?

Okay to be a little befuddled?

[cbayer]

81. I don't know what kinds of drugs you may or may not tried, but they don't

all "cloud the mind" or "befuddle".

It's your analogy - a very bad one, but you made it.

[cbayer]

7. Well, this divide could get deeper or Dawkins could step aside (as

I doubt he is going to lighten up).

I think she reflects what many are feeling, including many atheists who frequent this site.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. 'Step aside'? Aside from what?

He retired from his position as the Professor for Public Understanding of Science in 2008. Is 'step aside' a euphemism for 'shut up'?

[cbayer]

12. Shutting up would be a good place to start, particularly when it comes to twitter.

[edhopper]

86. Oh my!

People who offend you should just STFU.

I guess freedom of speech isn't a big concern of yours.

[cbayer]

87. I didn't say he had to and he is certainly not going to because I said so.

But he is doing himself and organized atheism no favors with things like that, so it is my opinion that he should stop doing it.

So what?

[edhopper]

89. Considering

the many. many people he has brought to atheism, myself included, I hope he keeps talking for a long time.

[cbayer]

90. I have said many times that he deserves much credit for

kicking down some doors that badly needed kicking.

He is representative of what happens in most movements. Those willing to take the most risks, yell the loudest and take the most outrageous positions have to get out front to get things started.

It's happened in every successful movement in my lifetime and many before that.

But.... there comes a point when those people or groups can become a liability to forward momentum.

That's where I think he is headed if he doesn't tone down some of the rhetoric that many, including many atheists, find offensive.

[edhopper]

92. What specific "outrageous" position

has he taken?

[cbayer]

94. This will be circular and not productive, but I will give you my primary objections.

Anti-theism, religion ruins everything, those that believe in god are diseased and delusional, the world would be better if religion were eliminated.

And then there is the sexism, classism, bigotry toward muslims that just ice the cake.

[edhopper]

96. Yes

you would like atheist to sit in a corner and leave religion alone.

I get it.

Never question others beliefs, right?

[cbayer]

98. Wow. Where did you get that?

I am behind atheist activism and a strong secularist.

I am, however, opposed to the anti-theists.

You can question all you want and many theists do not object to that. It is the position that they are wrong that I object to. They are no more wrong than you are, imo.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Feel free to voice your own opinion, but don't assume that you know mine.

[edhopper]

99. I will put it to a vote.

[cbayer]

100. You will put what to a vote, lol?

[edhopper]

101. See my new thread.

[cbayer]

104. Yes that will be some rational, scientifically based data fully grounded in reason.

You have got to be kidding.

[skepticscott]

124. You're an anti-theist yourself

You offer up all sorts of criticism and ridicule of the beliefs and actions of religious people, from calling creationists "a bunch of dumbasses" on down. It's more than a little disingenuous for you to point the anti-theist finger at anyone else, cbayer.

[cbayer]

126. Ugh, leave me alone.

[skepticscott]

135. Already addressed, and you know it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121876290#post23

Are you going to accuse me of a felony (stalking) for commenting on what you say, like you have others? Is that how you suppress criticism of your opinions, rather than engaging on the facts?

Pathetic.

[cleanhippie]

139. Use your Ignore feature, thats what its for.

Or you can stop posting responses.

[eomer]

118. I would ask you to reconsider whether all those merit shutting up.

For example, if I believe that secular humanism is a better way than any theistic religion, that the world would be better if we had a system of morals that do not depend on existence of a god (which i think makes me an anti-theist, though perhaps just barely) are you sure you want to call for me to shut up and keep my opinion to myself? I don't see how my opinion is any less worthy than the opposite one that you apparently hold. Am I to call for you to shut up?

Similarly for a belief that theists are delusional. Perhaps we could agree that the word delusional is a bit over the top - maybe deluded would bring us back into civil discourse. Surely mistaken would. So sticking with that, am I to shut up if I think theists are mistaken? If so why shouldn't I call for theists to shut up from saying they're not mistaken (and thereby saying that I am)?

And to clarify though I don't think I should have to: most of the things you object to I agree are beyond the bounds of civil discourse.

[cbayer]

119. Whether they merit shutting up or not doesn't really seem to be the issue.

I wish he would stop using his bully pulpit to promote intolerance and prejudice. Another way to say that is that I wish he would shut up about those things and use the influence he has to promote good, which I believe he can and has done.

Dawkins is a public figure who has a following. You are not. I am not going to tell you to shut up or even wish for you to shut up. That would rob me of my chance to challenge you, at the very least.

Please don't shut up.

[eomer]

120. I want everyone to shut up from promoting sexism. I want no one to shut up on the two I listed.

I think a civil discussion about whether a system of secular morals would bear better results than morals birthed from a theistic belief should be proper anywhere and by anyone. In other words, if promoting theism is fair then arguing against it in a way that is civil is also fair. Anti-theism done in a civil way does not merit being shut up, in my opinion.

[cbayer]

121. A discussion such as you propose would be interesting, but can

you really produce any data or would it just be a moot argument?

Moot arguments don't interest me much. I am way too left brained and like conclusions.

Civil is a very important word here. Calling people names, mocking them, belittling them - none of that is very civil, imo. So I would have to agree with you that making an anti-theistic argument in a civil way might not merit being told to shut up.

But it's still moot, because religion isn't going anywhere, so I find it best to seek out the good in it and promote that where I can.

[eomer]

122. We agree on the important parts.

I think you do sometimes (though maybe I'm wrong, let me know if so) support the proposition that we're better off with theism than we would be without it. If there isn't data to answer the converse of that question then there also isn't data to answer the question itself (in other words no data to support that which you promote). I think like most people we will still tend to support what we feel is best even on those questions that are difficult to answer through evidence.

Anecdotally, and just in the small circle of people with whom I interact on questions like this, I find it much more common that non-theists with secular morals will take a humane position on most all the questions of the day. My extended family members that are very theistic in their world views are the ones who are not humane on issues like marriage equality and war, and it is directly because of their religions that they take these stands.

As I say that is anecdotal and, what's more, as a member of a UU my circles are not the norm, but we all form views this way. We're not Mr. Spock, who refuses to have a view that's based on insufficient data.

As an aside, I preached my first sermon a few weeks ago, putting together not just the message but all the readings. I included several songs by Emma's Revolution. My service was well received. In doing it I promoted doing good to both theists and non-theists at once. My point is that one can promote good among theists without promoting theism.

Edit to add: it was a lay-led service while our minister was out for the summer.

[cbayer]

123. Big congratulations on you first sermon!

That's huge in my book, because public speaking is an area of terror for me. Sounds like you had a great topic as well.

Your anecdotal experience is, well, anecdotal experience, of course. I try to spend my time with people who have humane positions generally. Some of them are theists, some atheists, some really don't care either way. While it may be convenient to make some kind of correlation between being humane and being religious, I don't think that can really be backed up in any way.

[edhopper]

125. Dawkins does not have a "bully pulpit"

The bully pulpit is what politicians have where they can use their office to promote what they think is important.

Dawkins has people listening to him solely based on the power of the ideas he writes and talks about. He does not get an automatic hearing as politicians do.
So he is not using a bully pulpit, he is expressing himself as he always has, and people can listen or not.

[cbayer]

127. Your definition is too narrow. Of course he has a bully pulpit.

He's got a pretty big audience of people who are very much in tune with him, many of whom have a tendency to support him no matter what he says.

The power of ideas is exactly what a bully pulpit is about.

[edhopper]

128. I won't get into a round and round

let's just say we have a vastly different definition of the concept.

[cbayer]

129. Well, let's use different words then.

What if I say he has a rather prominent position within a community and an extensive following, which, when combined, offer him opportunities to influence others?

[edhopper]

130. Yes

And the "tweet' notwithstanding, he should continue to say whatever he wishes to about religion, any religion. And never STFU as you would have him.
Now if he used his position to speak on a subject completely off topic from religion and atheism. The one could question his decision.

[cbayer]

131. And he will continue to say whatever he wants to...

but he is losing some of his audience, and I, for one, am glad to see that happening.

There will stil be those that treasure and repeat every word and defend him even when what he has said is indefensible, but I predict that they will become marginalized and increasingly difficult to hear.

Natural selection happening on a social scale and extinction not far away.

[edhopper]

132. That's why he

continues to speak before SRO audiences and sells millions of books.

[cbayer]

133. He hasn't written a book in 7 years and SRO is always defined by venue.

He's about to set out on a US tour from Sept 23 - Oct 20. There are 14 venues, two of which are noted as sold out (Hudson Union Society and Seattle Town Hall?).

His total sales for "The God Delusion" were just over 2 million all together. The e-book, released last year, sold about 35,000 copies. Hardly millions.

I understand that he has provided a valuable service in the cause of reducing discrimination and increasing exposure and understanding.

I just think (hope) his job is done.

[edhopper]

136. I hope it's not

and glad he is still engaged.

[skepticscott]

138. Why are you using falsehoods about Dawkins

to bolster your argument? That says a lot about you, cbayer. And your arguments.

The Greatest Show on Earth came out in 2009

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True came out in 2011

An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist is coming out in 2013

Correct my math if I'm wrong, but that seems like less than 7 years to me. Or do those books not count, simply because YOU weren't aware of them?

[skepticscott]

137. You, for one

would be happy to see him gone the way of the dinosaurs (dead). That's a pretty despicable thing to wish on someone that you disagree with, especially when your arguments against him are so vapid.

And show us ONE person who will "treasure and repeat every word and defend him even when what he has said is indefensible". Can you? Just one? If not, will you admit that you just made that up out of visceral hatred for another human being?

[madrchsod]

76. richard dawkins foundation criticizes the vatican based on a satire news site....

someone didn't do any fact checking....!

http://www.catholicvirtue.org/2013/08/26/richard-dawkins-foundation-criticizes-vatican-based-on-satire-news-site/

newslo is a very good facebook page.

[cbayer]

82. One of our esteemed members also fell for this and posted it here.

Because, it must be true if Dawkins repeated it.

[rug]

117. Lol! Not all evidence is indeed evidence.