Dawkins 'in trouble'

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Do you really think that Town B killing Town A has really anything to do with religion? People will always find an excuse to kill each other. If it wasnt religion it would be something else. Try addressing poverty in the world and see how many rich religious people kill each other because of religion

Possibly true, but then it is hard to argue against town B attacking town A if God is used as the reason. You would probably get burnt at the stake

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

This is exactly the same in my opinion as say certain Islamic states sponsoring an Islamic education as a means of perpetuating their own influence.

Not really, because countries like Iran control the population through the belief system of Islam. Atheism doesn't have a belief system so you cannot control anyone through it. How would you?

The communists didn't control the country through the belief system of Atheism, they controlled the country through the belief system of Communism, one of whichs belief was that everyone should be an atheist.

Communism has beliefs, rules, idiology, dogma. So does Islam. Both can be used to control people through these rules and idiology. Do something wrong in an fundamentalist Islamic state you are affronting God. Do something wrong in a Communist country you are affronting the state/people.

Atheism doesn't have any belief system so how can anyone control someone with it?

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The point I'm trying to make and forgive my rambling thoughts is that atheism like all religions (or non-religion/idea/belief/ call it what you will) can also be misappropriated and made suit a group’s purpose.

Not really. You can certainly force people to be atheist, but the reason you are doing that is not because of any rules of atheism, its because of the rules of some other system, such as Communism.

As I said, atheism doesn't replace religion. You replace your religion with somethign else, Communism for example. You can of course argue the morality of such as system, but you aren't really talking about atheism. Atheism is a discription, not a belief system.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Where u say we should kill such and such since they don’t believe in X or Y. The repressive state can also use atheism to do the same;

But they don't use atheism. They use their belief system, like communism.

Religious people were not killed in USSR because of the rules of atheism. Atheism doesn't have any rules. They were killed because of the rules of Communism, specifically Marx/Lenin communism, which teaches that religion is evil and dangerous to the state.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

But we’re kind of getting off topic a good bit here. It might be worth branching the thread if our very own oppressor (the athirst) wishes the flow of the thread not to be broken.

Agreed

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054914721

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Is it highly arrogant to state slavery is immoral (in the Bible), rape is immoral (in the Bible), execution is immoral (in the Bible) etc.

It is not arrogance to point out the immorality in some belief systems. That is the whole point, that humanity derived belief systems can be updated improved, where as ones based on religious contexts cannot without defining the religion itself.

Look Wicknight, morality is relative. To assume that one moral system is superior to another is arrogant. Relgious people telling us what is right and wrong is just as arrogant as us telling them what is right and wrong.

Wicknight wrote:

True, and people like Dawkins are entitled to point out the flaw in that morality.

On who's authority? Who is Dawkins to point out flaws in any moral system? I don't remember electing him as my representative as an atheist/agnostic.

Wicknight wrote:

How can one person be superior to another? What do they have a bareknuckle fight?

Exactly my point ... you cant say that one person or one belief system is superior to another.

Wicknight wrote:

Playboy you are missing the point. Moral situation cannot improve until religion is stripped from legal/cultural morality. Or should we compare the civil liberites in a legally secular country like the US with a legally religious country like Iran?

You are missing my point. To assume that the moral situation will improve becuase religion is removed from the equation is naive. It didnt happen in China or Russia People might have civil liberties in the US but tell that to huge population of people living below the poverty line while the system helps them stay down and the rich get richer.

Wicknight wrote:

The laws that protect people's civil liberties in the US are constantly under attack from religous grousp trying to push their religion on others. The thing that protects them is the US constitution. It protects the preciesely because it is secular in nature.

And what does the secular government do for the poor in their own country? They spend billions on foreign wars to protect the interests of the rich. They couldnt give a damn about the poor. How moral is that?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Merely points this out? Is Dawkins seriously trying to make people believe that the world would be a better place if we all were atheists?.

Whats the difference between pointing something out and "seriously trying to make people believe" ... would you preferr if we has only half seriously pointing this out.

Playboy wrote:

If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being persecuted in World War 2. What about communism in Russia and China and all the atroicities that were committed? Is atheism not just as dangerous? Hypocrisy anybody?

Only if you don't understand what atheism is or the point Dawkins is making :rolleyes:

See the new thread I started for a discussion on what atheism is and isn't

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Look Wicknight, morality is relative. To assume that one moral system is superior to another is arrogant. Relgious people telling us what is right and wrong is just as arrogant as us telling them what is right and wrong.

Playboy, for the LAST TIME, atheism isn't a moral system. Dawkins is not trying to replace religion with the atheism moral system, because that doesn't exist.

What he would like is that we remove religion from the formation of our moral systems.

We should realise that all morality comes from humans, and that no moral system is beyond arguing and improvement.

Really, at the heart of Dawkins argument, is that the infaliability of God should be removed from discussions on morality. Do you actually disagree with this? Do you think it is a good thing to keep the idea that morals are Gods word and therefore cannot be argued against?

Playboy wrote:

On who's authority?

Authority? WTF? Under the authority of the freedom of ideas and discussion. That might be an alien concept in the realm of religious morality, but then that is kinda the point?

Playboy wrote:

Who is Dawkins to point out flaws in any moral system? I don't remember electing him as my representative as an atheist/agnostic.

Elect him? Again WTF are you talking about. Atheism isn't a democractic movement. I wouldn't even call it a movement. It is a discription.

Playboy wrote:

Exactly my point ... you cant say that one person or one belief system is superior to another.

You can't really say one person is superior to another.

You can say that one moral system is superior to another. Slavery is an inferrer moral system to democracy. There, I said it.

Playboy wrote:

You are missing my point. To assume that the moral situation will improve becuase religion is removed from the equation is naive. It didnt happen in China or Russia.

No one is assuming anything. But removing religion from moral situations can improve things. The seperation of church and state in the US is a classic example.

What is naive is to assume that just because you have a moral system that has no religion in it it will be automatically a great moral system. But then, no one is doing that

Playboy wrote:

People might have civil liberties in the US but tell that to huge population of people living below the poverty line while the system helps them stay down and the rich get richer.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Is the fact that a lot of poor people live in the US an argument against seperation of church and state?? Not following you here at all

Playboy wrote:

And what does the secular government do for the poor in their own country? They spend billions on foreign wars to protect the interests of the rich. They couldnt give a damn about the poor. How moral is that?

And that is because they are secular? Would it be better if George Bush was a deeply religous person? Oh wait ... :rolleyes:

robindch

> If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being
> persecuted in World War 2.

I do remember correctly that it was Hitler who claimed to be doing god's work. See the last two sentences of Chapter Two of Volume One of Mein Kampf:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Not much atheism there, I think you'll agree.

> And what does the secular government do for the poor in their own
> country? They spend billions on foreign wars to protect the interests
> of the rich. They couldnt give a damn about the poor. How moral is that?

It's completely unethical and given that the USA is easily the most religiously fundamentalist western country, I think you've just demonstrated everybody else's point that religion is not a reliable guide to ethical behaviour. There was an interesting article on this topic in the Times last year:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

...which expands upon your point -- societies which claim to have a god or gods on their side tend "towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide". A more succinct version of the above is here:

http://www.f*ckthesouth.com/

What you're failing to grasp is the difference between what religion says it's for ("morality" and "meaning"), and what it actually manages to achieve (artificial divisions, hypocrisy, reason for conflict etc, etc). And that's what Dawkin's was brave enough to point out and what religious people seem unable to entertain, let alone to accept.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

What you're failing to grasp is the difference between what religion says it's for ("morality" and "meaning"), and what it actually manages to achieve (artificial divisions, hypocrisy, reason for conflict etc, etc). And that's what Dawkin's was brave enough to point out and what religious people seem unable to entertain, let alone to accept.

The only thing I am failing to grasp is how naive people actually are and the delusions they are under. You make a sweeping generalisation about what you think religion is for and what you think it achieves and you cant see for the life of you see how bigoted you are being.

pH

Playboy wrote:

and you cant see for the life of you how bigoted you are being.

Only a 'self proclaimed philosopher' such as yourself Playboy would resort to calling robindch a bigot because you cannot argue against their position.

robindch in my opinion is one of the least prejudiced and most tolerant posters here.

Playboy

I'm not labeling Robin a bigot. The statement he made in regard to religion is bigoted. People on this board are generally intolerant of any kind of religious belief to the point of being prejudiced. The last time i checked that was what a bigot was. I'm not even remotely religious but i'm astonished at the one sided negativity that people spout on this board where people supposedly pride themselves on being rational and objective.

Btw pH, i never self proclaimed myself as anything. I have a degree in Philosophy but I am studying Psychology. Maybe studying the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science has given me a different perspective on these issues but I dont see why that has to be a negative thing. You obviously have some problem with philosophy which knowing you is completely unjustified because you have shown in a number of threads a complete lack of knowledge as to what it even is.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

The only thing I am failing to grasp is how naive people actually are and the delusions they are under. You make a sweeping generalisation about what you think religion is for and what you think it achieves and you cant see for the life of you see how bigoted you are being.

Points you seem to be ignoring. If you want to explain why myself, Dawkins, or robindch are actually wrong feel free.

Do you think basing a moral system around the idea that moral laws come from an infalable God is a good system to use? Do you accept any of the problems that have been mentioned here?

robindch

> You make a sweeping generalisation about what you think religion is for
> and what you think it achieves and you cant see for the life of you see
> how bigoted you are being.

I see nothing "bigoted" about describing religion as it is, rather than how people like to think that it is. I notice too that you have not addressed any of the points that I, or anybody else, has made, but rather resorted to the easier business of name-calling, from which anybody still left reading this thread will be able to draw their own conclusions.

> I have a degree in Philosophy but I am studying Psychology.

In that case, I would suggest you use your knowledge of philosophy to analyze the reasonableness of most religions' absolute, but absolutely different, claims to perfect knowledge, inerrant truth and authoritarian (or taboo) morality. Then complememt this with your knowledge of human psychology to examine whether or not religion might simply have evolved as cultural entity to supply, or feed upon, basic human psychological features such as the need for hierarchy, authority, strict rules, ingrouping, ancestor-worship etc, etc.

> i'm astonished at the one sided negativity that people spout on this
> board where people supposedly pride themselves on being rational
> and objective.

Have you considered that a rational and objective analysis might lead a rational and objective person towards a negative view of religion? You don't seem to have, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

Playboy

>I see nothing "bigoted" about describing religion as it is, rather >than how people like to think that it is. I notice too that you have not >addressed any of the points that I, or anybody else, has made, but rather >resorted to the easier business of name-calling, from which anybody still left >reading this thread will be able to draw their own conclusions.

Religion as it is? You have described religion in a biased and negative light. It is not that simple and a lot of people would disagree with you. I have addressed practically every point on this thread. The only points i havent replied to are ones that i have either conceded or dont think are worth replying to. I havent resorted to calling people names. I think you made a bigoted statement. I pointed that out to you.

>In that case, I would suggest you use your knowledge of philosophy to analyze the reasonableness of most religions' absolute, but absolutely different, claims to perfect knowledge, inerrant truth and authoritarian (or taboo) morality. Then complememt this with your knowledge of human psychology to examine whether or not religion might simply have evolved as cultural entity to supply, or feed upon, basic human psychological features such as the need for hierarchy, authority, strict rules, ingrouping, ancestor->worship etc, etc.

My own personal feelings on how religion developed and what purpose it serves are irrelevant. I respect the fact that other people apart from the atheists in this world are intelligent and can make up their own mind on the vailidity of what they believe. I'm not going to disrespect people by telling them that what they believe is a delusion when I havent seen the world through their eyes.

>Have you considered that a rational and objective analysis might lead a >rational and objective person towards a negative view of religion? You don't >seem to have, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

I'm not saying religion is the perfect guide to moral behaviour. What I am saying is that there is no absolute justification for any kind of moral behaviour. There is no grounds upon which we can claim moral superiority over another moral system unless we subscibe to some authority whether it be God or rational thought.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

There is no grounds upon which we can claim moral superiority over another moral system .

Playboy that is nonsense. As I've said a few times a moral system that allows something like slavery is an inferrior moral system. I don't think anyone in the west would argue against that position

jtsuited

ok playboy you are seriously failing to make any sort of coherent rebuttal to robdinch or wicknight's (very strong) arguments.
One thing i'd like you to consider is that in most (i think) atheists eyes, the very core characteristic of religion is it's very fault. And this fault is faith.

Faith is based upon belief and not knowledge or reason. Please do not make me have to point out the dangers of such a concept in a world inhabited by a species that has a strange tendency to murder and rape in the name of X.

X being a belief they feel is somehow beyond the scope of dicussion and rational analysis.
You also seem to be convinced that morality can only exist with religion. Pleas read up on the subject of morality.

BTW, Wicknight's arguments here are possibly the most coherent and intelligent i've ever seen on this topic.

Zombrex

jtsuited wrote:

And this fault is faith.

Faith and the manipulation of faith.

Dawkins would argue (I think) that the core aspect of religion is fundamentally immoral, that being the manipulation of fear and the promise of reward based on service to the religion.

Basically most western religions works by saying if you serve God you will be rewarded, but you must serve God for this. Serving God means living your life based on the teachings of the religion and living by the moral code layed down by the religion. That is a form of manipulation, and to a lot of people (especially people who are atheists) it is a rather distasteful form of manipulation.

This system of service-reward plays on fundamental fears of humanity (eg death-afterlife). Through this manipulation of basic human fears the religion is able to force its moral laws on the followers of the religion. If you want the reward you must follow the system. Don't follow the system no reward.

Many atheists would see this process as fundementally irresponsible and immoral, that it is wrong for any system to manipulate people in this fashion.

That is not to say that the people in the religion are necessarily immoral or "evil". Most are oblivioius to the true nature of the system since they by definition believe in it. But the system itself is flawed.

Its like a money pyramid scheme. Even if both the new member or the person who brought them into the scheme geninuenly believe in the system, it doesn't mean the system isn't immoral to start with.

Playboy seems to think that merely stating this opinion is disrespectful to the beliefs of the religions members. I disagree. I respect the right of anyone to believe anything they want. But that doesn't mean that others around them should not point out flaws and faults in their beliefs. I would expect anyone to challange my beliefs. I might not agree with their critisim but they have the right, and some woudl say the responsibility, to express what they believe. Same goes for me.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Playboy that is nonsense. As I've said a few times a moral system that allows something like slavery is an inferrior moral system. I don't think anyone in the west would argue against that position

How do you judge what is inferior? Is Slavery inferior becuase it restricts peoples freedom. What is freedom? Do you believe in negative or positive freedom? Why do we hold freedom as a moral ideal? How do we justify that ideal and claim its superiority over other cultures values and ideals? What authority do we appeal to .. God, rationality?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

How do you judge what is inferior? Is Slavery inferior becuase it restricts peoples freedom. What is freedom? Do you believe in negative or positive freedom? Why do we hold freedom as a moral ideal? How do we justify that ideal and claim its superiority over other cultures values and ideals? What authority do we appeal to .. God, rationality?

*Groan* (again)

Do you have a point, or are you just trying to drag this conversation into a philisophical debate on the nature of morality to avoid responding to what we are already talking about.

Do you agree or disagree that slavery is immoral? Your opinion answers your own questions above. Do you think slavery is immoral but you think you should not restrict others from practicing slavery?

Playboy

jtsuited wrote:

ok playboy you are seriously failing to make any sort of coherent rebuttal to robdinch or wicknight's (very strong) arguments.
One thing i'd like you to consider is that in most (i think) atheists eyes, the very core characteristic of religion is it's very fault. And this fault is faith.

Faith is based upon belief and not knowledge or reason. Please do not make me have to point out the dangers of such a concept in a world inhabited by a species that has a strange tendency to murder and rape in the name of X.

X being a belief they feel is somehow beyond the scope of dicussion and rational analysis.

Thank god i have you here to point out to me what faith is :rolleyes: It is you my friend who misunderstands the concept of faith. Try and do some research on what faith actually means before you lecture people on it.

jtsuited wrote:

You also seem to be convinced that morality can only exist with religion. Pleas read up on the subject of morality.

You obviously cant follow the debate if you think I am convinced of this.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

*Groan* (again)

Do you have a point, or are you just trying to drag this conversation into a philisophical debate on the nature of morality to avoid responding to what we are already talking about.

Do you agree or disagree that slavery is immoral? Your opinion answers your own questions above. Do you think slavery is immoral but you think you should not restrict others from practicing slavery?

Why are you dragging the debate off topic? We are talking about religious beliefs not slavery. Yes I do think slavery is wrong but I am also aware that my view is colored by the society and cultura that I was born and raised in. I would doubt very much that i would have thought it was wrong if I was born and raised in Ancient Greece.

I do believe that slavery should be restricted but as I said before that view is influenced by the society I live in.

Rev Hellfire

On the topic of is Dawkins a liability or not to 'atheism' for what I've seen of the man (and its not a lot, just the channel4 series) I would say he is. I would think myself somewhat receptive to the atheist position, but I found him infective when it came to convincing me of his arguments. It seems to me he likes to creates straw men that he then proceeds to knock down for his own intellectual vanity. The cult of Dawkins is stronger than the message been put across; he appears as an intellectual bully talking down to the audience.
And while I suspect his appreciative audience of firm disbeliveers may appreciate it, they aren’t the ones you need to convince.
To my mind the series done by Robert Winston was much more effective since he merely presented the facts and allowed the audience to reach the conclusions by themselves, thus making it’s a stronger and more effective series. (ps I know he not an athiest)

robindch

> It seems to me he likes to creates straw men that he then proceeds
> to knock down for his own intellectual vanity.

Perhaps you could back up this claim with a few instances of these "straw men"?

> he appears as an intellectual bully talking down to the audience.

For example?

Rev Hellfire

As I said before my knowledge of the guy came from the series. But as an example when he had the Baptist minister(?) on and was quizzing him it seemed a cheap shot. Basically wheeling out the most extreme example where he then proceeded talk at the man and when the stooge was giving his replies had a voice over drowning out the conversation where he proceeded to tell you what he felt the guy was saying and why he was saying it. I would rather here both side of a story rather than be given just one view with word been placed in the mouth of the other and form a view for myself.

Now I freely admit he may give a better account of himself in his books and did prefix my post by saying my knowledge of the guy was limited. But that’s how I saw it and I suspect I'm not alone in it.

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote:

To my mind the series done by Robert Winston was much more effective since he merely presented the facts and allowed the audience to reach the conclusions by themselves, thus making it’s a stronger and more effective series. (ps I know he not an athiest)

Winston's series and book was abysmal, as for not being an atheist:

And he still hasn't answered my question. But surely it is not unreasonable to ask the author of The Story of God whether he believes in God? 'Do I believe in the conventional God who sits on a throne in heaven and judges people on earth? No I don't. I don't believe that because I believe in free will.

BUT

He is an orthodox Jew who unfailingly attends synagogue, observes the Sabbath and will go hungry on film trips rather than eat non-kosher food.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1651375,00.html

So I'm not sure that atheist, agnostic or believer seems an appropriate word for Lord Winston, perhaps ... nutter?

robindch

> Basically wheeling out the most extreme example

Ted Haggard is not the most extreme example -- far from it -- try the grossly unpleasant Pastor Fred Phelps instead (http://www.godhatesfags.com).

As Dawkins pointed out as Haggard ranted through gritted teeth, finger-poking like a dictator, Haggard is mainstream to the extent that he (claims to) speak with President Bush every week. He is also president of the National Association of Evangelicals which claims to represent 45,000 churches and the website of which states quite baldly that "our numbers generate influence and power".

Haggard, though an extremist in European terms, is not in the USA. And that's exactly the problem that Dawkins made clear.

Rev Hellfire

Ohh I agree that with you on the content, but its the presentation I disagree with. And thats the problem I had with that series. But it may be simply that I dislike that sort of documentry, I feel I didnt need to have him tell me that the guy was extreme I could have figured it out for myself.

As for Winston series I know it wasn't coming for an atheist view point its the manner it was presented which I was refering to. In my defence I had appended to the post that he wasn't one. And it was well recieved by the masses. And thats the point, both camps are looking to sway those on the fence, everyone else is covered.

But then again my view on on the subject is different than both of yours since I certainly wouldnt define myself as an atheist.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I do believe that slavery should be restricted but as I said before that view is influenced by the society I live in.

So? A persons views are formed from a large number of different places.

The point about slavery is that is a moral system that if inferror to others. So the idea that all moral systems are equal and you cannot determine one over the other is, as I said before, nonsense. And also a view I don't think you actually believe

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

But then again my view on on the subject is different than both of yours since I certainly wouldnt define myself as an atheist.

You seem to have more issue with Dawkins himself than what he is actually saying. Personally I don't think Dawkins comes across well at all when he is presenting. He is not a presenter, and I don't think he is suited to it.

But that doesn't change the meat of his points or arguments.

I, like Robindch am not sure what you mean when you say he creates straw men just to knock them down? What he does do quite well is take the religious rules and beliefs to there logical conclusion and shows how ridiculous they are. I like the bit in the series where he challanged moderate Christians (I think one was a church of England minister) on why they don't follow the Bible letter for letter

robindch

> I feel I didnt need to have him tell me that the guy was extreme I could
> have figured it out for myself.

Yes, I know you could have. But again, that was not the point that Dawkins was making, which was was that this kind of extremism is common in the USA. A lot of people in Europe don't seem to appreciate how extreme the religious lobby is in the USA, and I think Dawkins was right to point this out (eg, the bit where he visited the rationalists, quite a few of whom said they'd been the victims of discrimination for being atheistic; see here).

I agree with Wicknight about the CofE guy (Richard Harris, Bishop of Oxford, AFAIR) -- he was the only participant who claimed to be motivated by religion, who was calm, decent and kindly. The rest were, by and large, nutjobs. And that's what makes religious belief so dangerous -- only very rarely does it per se seem to motivate people to good acts, and far more commonly, does it take unbalanced or power-hungry people and give them a justification and an outlet for their anti-social needs, together with their willing victims.

[BTW, I have a DVD ISO image of the two programs if anybody's interested in it -- I can put it on the web somewhere, or can burn a hardcopy if anybody's passing by Pearse Street at any time.]

bus77

I've tried to wittle down my feelings and thoughts on this as best I can.

Basically I believe these lads are being highly irresponsible. What I meen to say is this 'debate', by default, takes us straight into some of the most contentious and most long lasting questions and mysteries the world has ever known.

Science, politics, religion, morals, it's to much. We're only people ffs.

Rev Hellfire

bus77 wrote:

I've tried to wittle down my feelings and thoughts on this as best I can.

Basically I believe these lads are being highly irresponsible. What I meen to say is this 'debate', by default, takes us straight into some of the most contentious and most long lasting questions and mysteries the world has ever known.

Science, politics, religion, morals, it's to much. We're only people ffs.

Excellent response, I totally we agree we should stick our heads in the sand and not debate anything complicated.