Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dawkins strips away religion's dead wood

13»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm just saying that it is the case for quite a lot of people.
    My point is that I don't think it is the case for quite a lot of people so I'm asking you to back up that statement

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't mean that they are convinced by this. I mean that by the smoking example you are implying that religion is harmful to peoples health. Apologies, that was my fault for lack of clarity.
    No, I'm not. I'm saying the exact opposite. I pointed out that smoking is harmful to people's health and people can still be pressured into it and asked why you think they couldn't be pressured into something else that is not harmful to their health. Surely that would be easier?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes, but I don't think the two circumstances are like with like. I don't think people join Christianity because it's "cool" or to fit in generally. I'm struggling to get the reference to pressure really in this whole discussion we are having. Ultimately people will decide to believe in whatever they decide to believe in even if people are coerced to do so. You've surely heard of the idea of crypto-Judaism by now? If not look it up.
    Well in Africa people are currently doing it to fit in and in Ireland up until the 80's you'd have been shunned from your community if you publicly professed disbelief. In Islam the penalty for apostasy is death. People who decide to believe based solely on the merits of the belief are in an extremely small minority and that's the whole point I'm making

    Crypto-Jews actually prove part of my point. They don't truly believe christianity or whatever but they publicly profess it for social reasons.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    By pressuring I would assume that there would be some kind of intimidation involved. I don't think I've intimidated anyone to accept it as truth through my speaking to them. I don't think it's much relevant to what we are discussing anyway. We've moved on from how people generally find faith to tactics used by those advocating it.
    I just said there is generally no intimidation (I used the word vindictiveness but the point is the same). It doesn't even have to be a conscious act. You just see it as spreading the truth, the same as parents who teach their children about their religion. As I said, people have a tendency to accept social norms
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Would you consider the same if I said that this was also true for secular movements?
    Yes it would. As I keep saying, people accept social norms. If the social norm is secularism, people will tend to grow up secular. But this goes against your idea that a large number of people make a conscious intellectual decision to embrace religion. The overwhelming majority do it because their parents and peers are doing it. This acceptance not a trait that uniquely applies to religion nor is it a trait that doesn't apply to religion
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Anyhow, people are deliberately manipulative and vindictive in spreading religion, that was the point I was making.
    I'm glad you've admitted it :P
    I take it that was a typo


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    People can be vindictive in spreading religion rather. That is my typo sorry :) Are would also be true, as there are people who are vindictive in spreading their religion, but not all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ....I don't think people join Christianity because it's "cool" or to fit in generally....

    Yes, I think we can all agree on that one.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm struggling to get the reference to pressure really in this whole discussion we are having. Ultimately people will decide to believe in whatever they decide to believe in even if people are coerced to do so. You've surely heard of the idea of crypto-Judaism by now? If not look it up.....

    Accept the ever loving Jesus into your heart cause I just told ya about him or burn in hell. Coercion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Accept the ever loving Jesus into your heart cause I just told ya about him or burn in hell. Coercion.

    People don't have to accept that hell is true or that hell is a real place. I do agree that this argument can be used in an extremely hateful manner however and I absolutely condemn people who tell people for sure that they are going to hell. I prefer to discuss about what Jesus can do in peoples lives without saying that He is about to judge you to hell. People are likely to be more receptive to it too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ....I prefer to discuss about what Jesus can do in peoples lives without saying that He is about to judge you to hell. People are likely to be more receptive to it too.

    True I'm sure you would prefer to talk about that but considering that there is no evidence that Jesus does anything of the sort you're running short on mechanisms to impose the faith.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Jakkass wrote: »
    People don't have to accept that hell is true or that hell is a real place.

    But for the best part of 2,000 years that has been a major theme in Christianity. The dead wood is being trimmed it would seem Jakkass.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    In Christianity it is a major belief that hell is a real place. I meant that people don't have to accept Christian claims if they don't want. They have the autonomy to reject it. I can't imagine a theme as big as hell being shed from the Bible, or infact that any Biblical claim will be shed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    True I'm sure you would prefer to talk about that but considering that there is no evidence that Jesus does anything of the sort you're running short on mechanisms to impose the faith.

    I don't think that there isn't any evidence. That would be you claiming an absolute again. Through the sharing of testimonies on a daily basis Christians can show how Jesus has worked in their lives. Again it may be evidence by indication but none the less it is an account of how Christianity has shaped peoples lives.

    As for "imposing the faith". I don't see to "impose" anything on anyone. As I quoted from Muhammad of Islam, I believe there is "no compulsion in religion".


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think that there isn't any evidence. That would be you claiming an absolute again. Through the sharing of testimonies on a daily basis Christians can show how Jesus has worked in their lives. Again it may be evidence by indication but none the less it is an account of how Christianity has shaped peoples lives.

    In fairness, "evidence by indication" is not evidence at all. It is evidence that chrisianity has shaped these people's lives,fair enough, but not evidence that anything beyond that has happened. My love for comic books and science fiction has shaped my life to an extent and given me great joy, but (no matter how i want it to be the case) this does not mean nor imply yoda or batman are real :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    People use evidence by indication every day.

    For example: If a body is found and someone elses clothing is found near the body. It may suggest that the other person may have killed the individual in question. It isn't proof but it certainly is evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    People use evidence by indication every day.

    For example: If a body is found and someone elses clothing is found near the body. It may suggest that the other person may have killed the individual in question. It isn't proof but it certainly is evidence.

    you're actually right there, evidence by indication can be useful in certain circumstances but only as a means to point you in a direction, not to make the final decision. If you're basing a decision on such weak evidence then really you're deciding because you want it to be true and the evidence is just a bonus

    And remember the point I made about the strength of the evidence having to be related to the likelihood of the event. If someone's clothes are found at the scene it might well suggest that the owner of the clothes is the killer and might even result in a conviction but if you then find out that the person was in Australia on the day in question you're going to need a lot more than that


    And in a similar vein, if you're going to suggest that Jesus Christ is talking to you you're going to have to overcome the problem that it's far more likely than your mind was playing tricks on you and if you're going to claim that Jesus Christ did something for you, you're going to have to overcome the problem that sh!t just happens and it's far more likely that it was going to happen whether you asked Jesus for it or not.

    Basically, before you can confidently state that the laws of nature were broken just for you you're going to have to rule out all the far more likely natural explanations

    edit: reminds me of a term doctors use, a zebra. Horses are very common and zebras are very rare so "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras". And "when something good happens, think sh!t happens, not supernatural intervention"


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    People use evidence by indication every day.

    For example: If a body is found and someone elses clothing is found near the body. It may suggest that the other person may have killed the individual in question. It isn't proof but it certainly is evidence.


    I agree, but its not like you find Jesus' clothing lying around eh? :P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Jakkass wrote: »
    People use evidence by indication every day.

    For example: If a body is found and someone elses clothing is found near the body. It may suggest that the other person may have killed the individual in question. It isn't proof but it certainly is evidence.
    Indeed. But that person won't be prosecuted based on that alone, because it's not very strong evidence and the judicial system attempts to minimise the risk of convicting an innocent person.

    Deciding to devote your life to a religion is a huge decision which should not be taken lightly. Why should we lower our standards to accepting evidence by indication, if we wouldn't use it alone in any other important aspect of life?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Indeed. But that person won't be prosecuted based on that alone, because it's not very strong evidence and the judicial system attempts to minimise the risk of convicting an innocent person.

    Did I say that? Actually I even said in the rest of my post that it wasn't proof.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Deciding to devote your life to a religion is a huge decision which should not be taken lightly. Why should we lower our standards to accepting evidence by indication, if we wouldn't use it alone in any other important aspect of life?

    I didn't take it lightly.

    Again, I don't think another discussion about evidence is going to help either of us very much. We've been through evidence several times, and I know there is an insistence to keep going down that alley. I'd far prefer to keep on the actual topic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Again, I don't think another discussion about evidence is going to help either of us very much. We've been through evidence several times, and I know there is an insistence to keep going down that alley. I'd far prefer to keep on the actual topic.

    The problem, Jakkass, is that you're in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum and we're pretty much all about evidence :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    To get back to the topic though, the article says
    Dawkins and his ilk may have their sights trained on eliminating religion, but what they are actually doing is exposing its dead wood, the anachronisms that have been protected from critical thinking, and that needed cutting away.

    So basically it's saying that Dawkins is pointing out all the flaws in the arguments used for God so the religious are going to some up with new and better arguments in response, a sort of argumentative evolution if you will ;)

    Personally I don't see it happening. I think that if there were better arguments for God's existence they would have been thought of at some point in the last 2000 years. It's been nothing but logical fallacies and circular reasoning up until today and I don't see that changing any time soon.

    What religion needs to do to convince people intellectually is demonstrate that what they're saying is true experimentally but they can't do that because [insert excuse here]

    And in my opinion the main reason they'll never be able to come up with an airtight argument for God's existence is quite simply that he doesn't exist


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Deciding to devote your life to a religion is a huge decision which should not be taken lightly. Why should we lower our standards to accepting evidence by indication, if we wouldn't use it alone in any other important aspect of life?

    That isn't really the question. The question is in the modern Western world how successful will religion continue to be when people are not prepared to "lower our standards" and embrace religion. I think this is a major challenge that religion is simply not prepared to face.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That isn't really the question. The question is in the modern Western world how successful will religion continue to be when people are not prepared to "lower our standards" and embrace religion. I think this is a major challenge that religion is simply not prepared to face.

    This is based on pure rhetoric again.

    Who is saying that anyone has to "lower their standards" to adopt a faith. I don't think religion or atheism is about lowering anyones standards it's about seeking the truth at the end of the day. This is what both parties claim anyway.

    You are assuming also that the "modern Western world" will universally hold the opinion that you hold. Which again is nonsense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is based on pure rhetoric again.

    Who is saying that anyone has to "lower their standards" to adopt a faith. I don't think religion or atheism is about lowering anyones standards it's about seeking the truth at the end of the day. This is what both parties claim anyway.

    You are assuming also that the "modern Western world" will universally hold the opinion that you hold. Which again is nonsense.

    I wouldn't say he's assuming people will hold the same opinion of him, I'd say he's assuming people will have the same standard of evidence as him, a standard that religions cannot meet. I would definitely have to lower my standards to adopt a faith. I would have to ignore doubts that have not been addressed and can never be addressed


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who is saying that anyone has to "lower their standards" to adopt a faith.
    We are :p

    That is the argument, and it is, I feel at least, backed up some what by decline in religious faith in areas of high education, particularly science education.

    Though personally I wouldn't call it a lowering of standards, more a raising of standards, standards that are difficult for someone to lower once they have been raised.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think religion or atheism is about lowering anyones standards it's about seeking the truth at the end of the day. This is what both parties claim anyway.

    Yes but those exposed to things like the philosophy of science tend to have higher standards of what they are willing to accept as true.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You are assuming also that the "modern Western world" will universally hold the opinion that you hold. Which again is nonsense.

    Not universally, but in a greater and greater majority.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    I think the internet will have a big impact in the next few years. Remember, it's still only in its infancy.

    As internet access increases, the ease of accessing such a huge amount of information free from any censorship will give rise to people holding much more informed beliefs and opinions. IMHO, I think this will result in many more people adopting atheism. I mean, just think, when African nations that have known nothing but Christianity gain widespread access to the internet, opinions are going to become a lot more varied.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    As internet access increases, the ease of accessing such a huge amount of information free from any censorship will give rise to people holding much more informed beliefs and opinions. IMHO, I think this will result in many more people adopting atheism. I mean, just think, when African nations that have known nothing but Christianity gain widespread access to the internet, opinions are going to become a lot more varied.
    That will work both ways. Africans getting online for the first time will find plenty of support for the beliefs they've been given.

    The internet already is, and will continue to be the setting for the Battle Royale for souls.


Advertisement