When atheists go too far

Turtwig

Somehow stumbled back into this thread. Anyhu, that video is one of the greatest travesties of the internet. Just like most people associate Pascal's Wager as an "achievement" of Pascal's, Dawkins gave one heck of an explanation of his views to that crowd and three entirely different answers to that women. The third one though, is the only one that most people will see.:(
If you want to make an honest critique if Dawkins then you should get your arse on Fora.tv and watch the entire lecture and q and a.

http://fora.tv/2006/10/23/Richard_Dawkins
(q14 - What if you are wrong?)

steddyeddy

As I said its good that some people are combatting the more damaging aspects of religion but I dont think theres a place in society for attacking people who hold personal beliefs who dont harm others.

steddyeddy

Sorry malty just to take you up on your sig if I may

"Scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule."- Colin Patterson.

It has rarley been skepticisim that has been exposed to the most ridicule. The discoverers of a lot of major scientific milestones were ridiculed themselves by the mainstream science.

This relates back to my stance that a scientist should take the position "we simply dont know".

Ellis Dee

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said its good that some people are combatting the more damaging aspects of religion but I dont think theres a place in society for attacking people who hold personal beliefs who dont harm others.

As I see it, the personal beliefs that people hold do not harm anyone. However, when they try to push those beliefs on others, they become a boring nuisance at best and at worst they (not the personal beliefs as such, but the persons trying to force others to live in accordance with them) can indeed become harmful. There are many ways to oppose them, but I find that making fun of them is better than a lot of other ways. However, making fun of absurd people or those who publicly profess absurd views and thereby invite ridicule is hardly "attacking" them.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

Ellis Dee wrote: »

However, when they try to push those beliefs on others, they become a boring nuisance

Kinda like some Atheists?;)

Canis Lupus

Freddie59 wrote: »

Kinda like some Atheists?;)

We'll never kick you out of bed on a Sunday morning to go to mass.

Shenshen

Freddie59 wrote: »

Kinda like some Atheists?;)

When I see the first atheist physically trying to stop someone from entering a church in this country, I think you might have a point.

At the moment, it's a very uneven playing field indeed.

Ellis Dee

Freddie59 wrote: »

Kinda like some Atheists?;)

Do you know atheists like that? I don't. Thank the sky fairy (joke!).:):) And I've never even heard of atheists who would try to have atheism made a compulsory subject in schools or have a "ding-dong for atheism" on the national broadcaster's radio and TV stations at certain hours of the day. I suppose atheists are far better at not doing anything than at pushing anything on anyone. Essentially, all they mostly want is for the god-bothers to push off and leave them alone.

Ghost Buster

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Do you know atheists like that? I don't. Thank the sky fairy (joke!).:):) And I've never even heard of atheists who would try to have atheism made a compulsory subject in schools or have a "ding-dong for atheism" on the national broadcaster's radio and TV stations at certain hours of the day. I suppose atheists are far better at not doing anything than at pushing anything on anyone. Essentially, all they mostly want is for the god-bothers to push off and leave them alone.

Sure you know atheists like that . They are absolutely everywhere... well by everywhere i mean on Boards.ie in The atheist section and on topics dealing with atheism. Non belief pushing bastards!!!!!!!

Cú Giobach

All those atheists having discussions on a discussion forum, bastards. :mad:

Ghost Buster

Cú Giobach wrote: »

All those atheists having discussions on a discussion forum, bastards. :mad:

They make me sick. Putting Nothings on walls in schools and hospitals and observing Christmas and Easter and Thursday and having sex outside marriage.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::eek::eek::eek::mad::mad::eek:

Asry

Ellis Dee wrote: »

As I see it, the personal beliefs that people hold do not harm anyone. However, when they try to push those beliefs on others, they become a boring nuisance at best and at worst they (not the personal beliefs as such, but the persons trying to force others to live in accordance with them) can indeed become harmful. There are many ways to oppose them, but I find that making fun of them is better than a lot of other ways. However, making fun of absurd people or those who publicly profess absurd views and thereby invite ridicule is hardly "attacking" them.:rolleyes:

Yeah, but athiests try to shove things down religious people's throats too. I'm Roman Catholic, and I've had had rough time of it fending off people making snide comments or getting angry and saying I'm stupid or uneducated etc. I would be the last person who'd get up on the soapbox and preach at you. I mean, you don't believe it, that's fine by me, you know? So it's important to remember that it goes both ways.

Asry

Actually, speaking of people physically making people do stuff, I've had an aquaintance of mine throw some pamphlets I was reading into the bin.



....AND I've had a guy come up to me at a party and start on me because I was wearing my communion medal, saying I was disgusting and sick and stuff. That was a bit yucky.

sensibleken

Asry wrote: »

Actually, speaking of people physically making people do stuff, I've had an aquaintance of mine throw some pamphlets I was reading into the bin.



....AND I've had a guy come up to me at a party and start on me because I was wearing my communion medal, saying I was disgusting and sick and stuff. That was a bit yucky.

how drunk were you and what were you doing?

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry malty just to take you up on your sig if I may

"Scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule."- Colin Patterson.

It has rarley been skepticisim that has been exposed to the most ridicule. The discoverers of a lot of major scientific milestones were ridiculed themselves by the mainstream science.

This relates back to my stance that a scientist should take the position "we simply dont know".

If I may so "we simply don't know" isn't really a useful stance. Let's ask the question "Why is the sky blue?" Now obviously using your system of thought we have to say that the colour is unknown. Which is true as we can't know with certainty what actual colour the sky is, or even if there is such a thing as colour. However, where does such a trail of thought actually get us? Have we learned anything about the sky? Or have we just stumbled upon a system where we can basically chicken out at any minute and go "Well, we can't know for sure" if we think something is going beyond our comfort zone? The more scientific based question would however be "Is the sky blue?"

The approach taking in the modern day scientific method is one based on sceptisim it's kind of built off falsification, but not wholly. There is probably (again, we probably cannot know for certain) only one way to be right and a near infinite number of ways to be wrong. So rationally speaking, we are more likely to always be wrong than right. This, however, is different to the "we don't know", in that we now aim to be less wrong than we were previously. Take the simple example of Einstein his explanation of Gravity is less wrong than Newton's who's in turn was less wrong than those who postulated before him. In all cases though we are seeing tangible progress between the scientific models and we are eliminating false ones. Now I'm sure you'll agree the more false claims we eliminate the closer we come to finding the actual accurate claim. It is in this sense that science is a process of constant refinement, filtering out more and more falsities. As you've probable realised by now this leads to realisation that we're probably never going to be fully right and crucially we must never assume we are right. So scientifically speaking the claim the earth is smaller than the sun is never going to be proven correct. Who know's there may be some as yet undiscovered phenomenon that warps the sizes of bodies? Einstein probably explained science the best in his famous quote "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can be prove me wrong."

With regards to the those were ridiculed, I think you'll find that the vast majority of people who referenced themselves as some kind of Galileo throughout history are total quacks and contributed absolutely nothing! And for what it's worth Newton was a total quack who spent over 90% of life dabbling into the occult. He probably wouldn't have published anything on calculus, optics or mechanics if wasn't for the influence of others. Even then, his crowning life achievement according to himself was that he had remained celibate. There have been people who won Nobel prizes who have held the most bizarrely twisted views e.g Kary Mullis. Just because someone has discovered something or contributed to a field doesn't mean their opinion is going to be valid. (Especially if it's an opinion in a completely different field.) Likewise the same applies to those who discover or contribute nothing. This is why if someone just quotes a scientist or string of scientists (the quotewall) as a way of arguing their viewpoint I usually just ignore their post. Personal opinions ultimately have no bearing on reality.

The quotation in my sig is in memory of a victim of creationism. It's quite a long story but basically he was blatantly misrepresented for years by creationists. The sad thing is even having passed away they still today dishonestly distort his views. Visit the boards.ie multiple creationist threads and you'll see his viewpoints being dishonestly misrepresented. Mr Patterson had doubts about the fossil record interpretation. Creationists completely misrepresented these views to the extent that often times mainstream scientists ended up thinking Patterson held those creationist described 'false' views. Yet despite the uproar, furore and sometimes ridicule he persisted in being skeptical about evolution. Regardless of the opinions of others it is the scientists duty to be open to the idea that they could be wrong (they most likely are) and regardless of how often your views are misrepresented you still have to maintain skepticism* towards your discipline. In Patterson's case this lead to expending a great deal of energy dealing with utter dishonesty and quackery antics by religious fundamentalists. That's why I quoted the guy, he was for ,lack of a better term, a patriot for science. In light of creationists constantly misrepresenting his views and trying to portray him as somehow validating their arguments he kept questioning evolution regardless.
.

Tl;dr Skepticism is based on the principle that the vast majority of truth claims are going to be false. You are far more likely to arrive at the truth when you assume all claims to be false and eliminate them one by one; each time getting closer and closer to the truth. Also, we should remain skeptical about whether such a truth actually exists in the first place.
Newton proud celibate.
Colin Patterson rocked!


*I could probably go on for another page explaining how certain things that the media commonly refers to as sceptics or scepticism isn't really scepticism but that's probably not for this thread. Pseudo Skepticism and denialism is a pretty big problem we face today especially with the internet making it much easier to disseminate bullsh1t and credulity.

Asry

sensibleken wrote: »

how drunk were you and what were you doing?

hahaha I wasn't doing anything, I swear! I'm assuming I was pretty drunk though because I tend to be in that state quite a lot somehow :rolleyes::D

KeithAFC

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not. As if they have actually died and found out, came back to Earth and are actually telling us. It is rather funny.

philologos

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said its good that some people are combatting the more damaging aspects of religion but I dont think theres a place in society for attacking people who hold personal beliefs who dont harm others.

Of course this is the ideal. However, personally I really have no issue with people criticising or slating individuals for holding to particular systems of thought. Is it civil? No. Is it respectable? No. Will people continue to do so? Yes.

People have the liberty to say what they will. How they should use that liberty ethically is another issue.

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not. As if they have actually died and found out, came back to Earth and are actually telling us. It is rather funny.

Welcome back, it's nice to see your usual well thought out, thought provoking and intelligent insights again.

Ellis Dee

Asry wrote: »

Actually, speaking of people physically making people do stuff, I've had an aquaintance of mine throw some pamphlets I was reading into the bin.



....AND I've had a guy come up to me at a party and start on me because I was wearing my communion medal, saying I was disgusting and sick and stuff. That was a bit yucky.

I think your real problem is not with atheists, but with those of your acquaintances who are definitely uncool - to the point of extreme jerkofferdom.

How do you know those people are atheists? One sounds like a bossy, bullying type, the other a moron who, to use a Midlands saying, is like a jackass's tool - a big man when he's out.:eek:

Those are isolated examples of people who just don't know how to behave. They are only looking for someone to pick on and an excuse to do it. In your case it was religious pamphlets and some kind of medal that set you apart. If you were gay, or wearing something unusual, that would have been their angle of attack. The atheism was probably plucked out of the air and in reality they will go with the flow, get married in church, send their sprogs to a Catholic school, and so on.:rolleyes:

Bear in mind, however, that these are one-off eejits. They do not have powerful organisations behind them. They do not have representatives who will do their best to harness the laws of the land to make people act according to the dictates of their religion (well, actually, non-philosophy).

People who are genuinely atheist because they have thought about it do not feel the need to proselytise, although some may have become hyper-allergic to what they see as religion coming at them from the woodwork. That's hardly such a totally far-fetched idea in Ireland, is it?

DoubleBogey

People who believe in supernatural beings should be hunted down and burnt alive at the stake.

coffee_cake

Asry wrote: »

Actually, speaking of people physically making people do stuff, I've had an aquaintance of mine throw some pamphlets I was reading into the bin.
.

Do you know they were an atheist or just a non catholic?

MagicMarker

DoubleBogey wrote: »

People who believe in supernatural beings should be hunted down and burnt alive at the stake.

Mmmm, stake.

keano_afc

DoubleBogey wrote: »

People who believe in supernatural beings should be hunted down and burnt alive at the stake.

That you Kim Jong-il?

old hippy

DoubleBogey wrote: »

People who believe in supernatural beings should be hunted down and burnt alive at the stake.

I wouldn't go that far. Perhaps a period of rest in a psychiatric ward where they can receive the relevant care and counselling.

Asry

KeithAFC wrote: »

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not. As if they have actually died and found out, came back to Earth and are actually telling us. It is rather funny.

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW that he doesn't. That's also funny.

optogirl

Asry wrote: »

I love the way people go on as if they KNOW that he doesn't. That's also funny.

Um..that was Keith AFC's point. note the sentence '
I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not'

Asry

bluewolf wrote: »

Do you know they were an atheist or just a non catholic?

Oh, an atheist. It's OK, like. I mean. I get it. She was angry because of experiences she'd had with the Church, like she doesn't like nun or whatever, and so she reacts with anger against people who espouse those beliefs, regardless of whether the person was being aggressive about it or not. People's reactions are always determined by their experiences, aren't they? I mean, if your mom shouts at you, it's likely she's having a bad day, she's not really anger.

Asry

optogirl wrote: »

Um..that was Keith AFC's point. note the sentence '
I love the way people go on as if they KNOW god exists or not'

Yeah, I saw that. I didn't mean my reply as a ripost, just as a general observation. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding or offence caused

ITguy2

steddyeddy wrote: »

http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

But you have to admit religion is kind of humorous, it's humorous in it's innocence for some of us in the way that adults view children awaiting santa claus on christmas eve, or leaving carrots out for Rudolph.