Author Topic: Richard Dawkins  (Read 270616 times)

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2720 on: January 28, 2015, 03:30:18 pm »
So for me, I feel 99.9% confident there is no god. I don't think 'weak atheist' quite fits that sort of percentage. And by tempting me with the term 'strong atheist', you would be passing the burden of proof over to me.

I think the problem was highlighted when you were invited to answer the same question on the Mourinho Lizard. You rejected the premise of the question on the grounds that comparing the Chelsea manager being a lizard wasn't the same as there being a divine creator. I'm sure you rejected the question as you knew where it was headed, the fact you can't disprove Mourinho Lizard turns into the identical debate you started but with a shape shifting reptile in place of god. So by your own terms you're a weak atheist in terms of Mourinho being a Lizard. But in fact you'd probably rather call yourself a strong atheist about Lizard Mourinho, but have no evidence to back this up.

Precisely.

Offline Riquende

  • Taking one for the team by giving one to a lucky mascot? Pix or stfu!! (Although is PC is from the 90s so you'll have to wait a while...)
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,781
  • Μετρήστε με με μανία
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2721 on: January 28, 2015, 03:33:59 pm »
Strong atheism or weak? Or both?

I don't use the strong/weak terms, I only use the term atheism. By strong atheism, do you actually mean antitheism (the belief there is no god)? That's something different entirely as it involves a claim.
"The nicest thing about quotes is that they give us a nodding acquaintance with the originator which is often socially impressive."

~ Kenneth Williams, with whom I'm noddingly acquainted. Socially impressed?

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,684
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2722 on: January 28, 2015, 03:48:24 pm »




I'm new to this thread, so I'm sure at point this has already come up, the Dawkins scale of beliefs. Dawkins himself, says he cannot disprove god, therefore he is a 6 on this scale of beliefs (De facto atheist). But for all intents and purposes, he lives his life as a 7. When you say 'the honest intellectual position is agnostic', I assume you don't mean agnostic in the way it's used on Dawkin's scale, but in fact it's simply a word that has a slightly muddled message in today's vocabulary. Would that be correct?


Yes, it has come up before a few pages back, and yes whilst I appreciate what Dawkins has tried to do with that scale, he has conflated belief with knowledge in an attempt to explain it in a way that fits in with popular usage of those terms, so I can't endorse it.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline IgoDirk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2723 on: January 28, 2015, 04:02:50 pm »
Yes, it has come up before a few pages back, and yes whilst I appreciate what Dawkins has tried to do with that scale, he has conflated belief with knowledge in an attempt to explain it in a way that fits in with popular usage of those terms, so I can't endorse it.

Ah okay, I find that interesting. I thought it was a useful tool to explain his ideas in the God Delusion, and hadn't really questioned it to be honest (I read it not long ago, and is pretty much the only thing I've read on atheism). I'll have a search back through these pages to read the discussion. Thanks!

Offline RedRabbit

  • Rampant but without the batteries.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,045
  • این نیز بگذرد
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2724 on: January 28, 2015, 04:15:08 pm »
What I love about these strong atheist vs strong theist debates that are knocking about is that they both want the same outcome: that atheism disappears altogether.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,380
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2725 on: January 28, 2015, 04:51:06 pm »
Firstly, I come in peace :)

With that caveat out of the way, I'd like to ask your thoughts on the question of whether atheism isn't a belief.

My understanding is you can broadly split atheism into two types: strong and weak.

Strong atheism claims there is no god. Weak atheism says I see no evidence there is a god, therefore I reject the claim there is.

So, given you all seem to agree atheism isn't a belief, are you all in fact weak atheists?

Secondly, how is weak atheism substantially different from agnosticism if it isn't a belief?

And finally, do any of you see why your behavior in arguments might give the impression that you are believers?

Thanks folks.

The question is whether atheism is a belief system that relies on faith and a fixed set of rules and texts.

Personally I am an atheist. I am also aghostist, adragonist, afairyist, a mermaidist and a whole load of other a(insert supernatural entity here)ist. None of those things rely on faith. There is simply no evidence for any of them. I belive that none of those exist but none those 'beliefs' have any impact on my daily life, my actions, or the way I deal with others.

Science and religion have the same root - the human desire to understand and explain the world. Where science and religion part company is that religions decided that they have the answer, usually at some pre-scientific and pre-technological stage of human development, whereas science continues to question and review.

I can see that many religious people must see atheism as a belief system, because it's inconceivable that one can exist without such a belief system to support their world view. That doesn't make atheism the same as a religion.

It might be for some atheists but for me and many others, atheism is just a statement of a negative. I do have beliefs but they are based on experience and normal, human behaviour.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,380
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2726 on: January 28, 2015, 04:55:34 pm »
The burden of proof is a red herring.  Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Strong atheism requires a belief.

I believe strongly that it's up to those who claim there is a god to prove his existence.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion. Phil's Official Biographer, dontcherknow...it's all true. Honestly.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 34,479
  • The first five yards........
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2727 on: January 28, 2015, 04:57:42 pm »
I'll risk the condemnation!

So which are you, strong or weak?

Strong, obviously.
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,380
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2728 on: January 28, 2015, 05:01:04 pm »
I reject the premise to be honest. I don't think you can compare a question that pertains to where the universe comes from to a question about the Chelsea manager.

You're right. On the one hand we're discussing someone that actually exists, and the only question is what type of creature they are. On the other hand we're discussing someone/thing for which there is no proof of existence and who is completely unnecessary for the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe.

Discussing whether Mourinho is a shape shifting lizard is far more rational than discussing the existence of God.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2729 on: January 28, 2015, 05:05:37 pm »
Personally I am an atheist. I am also aghostist, adragonist, afairyist, a mermaidist and a whole load of other a(insert supernatural entity here)ist.

Unfortunate space there, or a weakness for Daryl Hannah.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,380
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2730 on: January 28, 2015, 05:09:44 pm »
Unfortunate space there, or a weakness for Daryl Hannah.
;D
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 94,250
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2731 on: January 28, 2015, 05:57:10 pm »
Have none of you got work to do? Blimey!
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline WillG.LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,260
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2732 on: January 28, 2015, 07:39:08 pm »
If you say 2+2 = 5 and I disagree it doesn't mean my rejecting of your opinion is a belief of any sort. I simply dont agree with you.

Offline Chakan

  • Chaka Chaka.....is in love with Aristotle but only for votes. The proud owner of some very private piles and an inflatable harem! Winner of RAWK's Carabao Cup captian contest.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 91,079
  • Internet Terrorist lvl VI
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2733 on: January 28, 2015, 07:40:30 pm »
If you say 2+2 = 5 and I disagree it doesn't mean my rejecting of your opinion is a belief of any sort. I simply dont agree with you.

2+2 = 4 is provable though. It's not a belief.

Offline WillG.LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,260
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2734 on: January 28, 2015, 07:43:42 pm »
Regardless of if its provable or not, if I disagree with someones opinion, my disagreeing with them isnt then some sort of belief system of my own. If I disagree about peoples version of god (atheism), it doesnt mean thats my belief I simply reject theirs

Offline Chakan

  • Chaka Chaka.....is in love with Aristotle but only for votes. The proud owner of some very private piles and an inflatable harem! Winner of RAWK's Carabao Cup captian contest.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 91,079
  • Internet Terrorist lvl VI
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2735 on: January 28, 2015, 07:44:29 pm »
Regardless of if its provable or not, if I disagree with someones opinion, my disagreeing with them isnt then some sort of belief system of my own. If I disagree about peoples version of god (atheism), it doesnt mean thats my belief I simply reject theirs

Disagreeing with someone that 2+2 = 4 makes you an idiot. Not a believer.

Offline WillG.LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,260
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2736 on: January 28, 2015, 07:45:51 pm »
Wow its an example and not to be taken literally. Talk about missing a point :D
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 07:52:51 pm by WillG.LFC »

Offline Chakan

  • Chaka Chaka.....is in love with Aristotle but only for votes. The proud owner of some very private piles and an inflatable harem! Winner of RAWK's Carabao Cup captian contest.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 91,079
  • Internet Terrorist lvl VI
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2737 on: January 28, 2015, 07:47:05 pm »
Wow its an example and not to be taken literally. Take about missing a point :D

Because your example has no bearing on what's being discussed. You're talking about a provable fact. Something that someone can sit down and show you you're wrong. You can't do that with religion.

Offline WillG.LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,260
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2738 on: January 28, 2015, 07:51:36 pm »
The point your missing is that rejecting someones opinion doesnt make that my belief. It doesnt matter if I choose religion, favourite cheeses or science 

Offline WillG.LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,260
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2739 on: January 28, 2015, 07:57:42 pm »
If you disagree with my post does it make you a wills-example-eist :D

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2740 on: January 28, 2015, 10:46:50 pm »
Famed biologist: Religion ‘is dragging us down’ and must be eliminated ‘for the sake of human progress’

Biologist E. O. Wilson, who is known as the “the father of sociobiology,” said recently that the Earth was suffering “the death of a thousand cuts” because of religion.

In the most recent issue of New Scientist, Wilson explained that his next book would look at the future of humans and the Earth.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning biologist warned that people had not yet realized that the “tribal structure” had been destroying the planet by “a thousand cuts,” according a partial transcript obtained by the International Business Times.

“All the ideologies and religions have their own answers for the big questions, but these are usually bound as a dogma to some kind of tribe,” he said. “Religions in particular feature supernatural elements that other tribes – other faiths – cannot accept … And every tribe, no matter how generous, benign, loving and charitable, nonetheless looks down on all other tribes. What’s dragging us down is religious faith.”

“Humans everywhere have a strong tendency to wonder about whether they’re being looked over by a god or not. Practically every person ponders whether they’re going to have another life,” Wilson continued. “These are the things that unite humanity.”

But he said that the “transcendent searching has been hijacked by the tribal religions.”

“So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths. But certainly not eliminating the natural yearnings of our species or the asking of these great questions.”

Wilson, who was raised as a Baptist in Alabama, has said that he “drifted” away from Christianity, but he doesn’t refer to himself as an atheist.

“I’m a scientist,” he told the magazine.

source

As far as I recall, Wilson isn't a huge fan of Dawkins.

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,994
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2741 on: January 28, 2015, 11:01:59 pm »
The key part in your quote is the qualifier 'popular sense of term'.

I'm always more concerned with the correct use of the term however, and that's where that is wrong. Agnosticism has absolutely nothing to do with belief either way. It's entirely related to knowledge.

Usage is king. Agnostic is commonly held to mean that people do not have a belief one way or the other. So long as you define the term whenever you use it, there shouldn't be a problem, but you can't demand that everyone else follows your (technically correct, but arguably archaic) definition.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,994
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2742 on: January 28, 2015, 11:03:56 pm »
I believe strongly that it's up to those who claim there is a god to prove his existence.

Only to their own satisfaction, though. Not yours. Unless they are trying to convince you, in which case obviously, yes.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2743 on: January 29, 2015, 07:05:17 am »
Regardless of if its provable or not, if I disagree with someones opinion, my disagreeing with them isnt then some sort of belief system of my own. If I disagree about peoples version of god (atheism), it doesnt mean thats my belief I simply reject theirs

Yes it is.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline WillG.LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,260
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2744 on: January 29, 2015, 07:46:39 am »
Then where do you draw the line, I can make up anything and if you dont believe it, similar to the mourinho lizard point earlier, then clasify you with a belief system based off that. Its ridiculous. We dont do it for other things or do you class people as being in santa-ism and other such 'beliefs'. The idea is bonkers. You can believe in your gods, religions etc but dont start classifying the rest of us by it
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 07:52:13 am by WillG.LFC »

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2745 on: January 29, 2015, 08:11:15 am »
The key thing here is that if you believe in God then you are effectively believing in a particular conception of the universe, one that has some divine and unknowable purpose or direction.  It may be governed by physical laws but those laws were instigated by some higher power. While we can continue to probe the universe scientifically and learn more about it we will never as living creatures within it know the full truth.

If you are a rationalist then you believe in a particular conception of the universe, one in which the universe just is, that it exists either through sub-atomic chance or because it always has, that universe is governed by physical laws because those laws are inherently necessary for the universe to exist as it does. Through scientific endeavour we can slowly unwrap the secrets of the universe until one day we may know it completely.

At that most basic summation then in all practical aspects you would actually struggle to slide a rizla between the two positions. They key difference is philosophical, which conception sits better with you. 

As a rationalist when you start asking for proof or evidence or begin warbling on about unicorns, faeries, teapots, spaghetti monsters or Mourinho lizards then you are fundamentally missing the point, those with faith inhabit a different but scientifically identical universe to you.


So the atheism question becomes which universe do you believe in?  You can either be firmly in one camp or the other or you can be unsure. If you are firmly in one camp then that is a decision taken on faith or lack of it. 
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline WillG.LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,260
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2746 on: January 29, 2015, 08:27:36 am »
My point still stands then. Why aren't there other classifications for not believing in other things. The reason is because normal sense and reason goes out the window concerning god or religion. Its as simple as that. I wouldn't class myself as an atheist just as I wouldn't class myself in santa-ism or any other silly name that was created based on other people's beliefs.

If you look at it logically the belief in god has changed through the ages as has religion itself. You wouldn't be happy if you were going into an operation and the doctor said we will be using a 2000 year old medical book for the procedures. Every other subject has progressed and evolved since then, to think our religions and concept of a god are correct from then is laughable. The obvious reason is because the subject matter is based on unprovable concepts at this moment in time.



Offline zero zero

  • Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,533
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2747 on: January 29, 2015, 09:08:14 am »
As a rationalist when you start asking for proof or evidence or begin warbling on about unicorns, faeries, teapots, spaghetti monsters or Mourinho lizards then you are fundamentally missing the point, those with faith inhabit a different but scientifically identical universe to you.
Hang on a minute. There was a time when one of the Big Questions was: How did we get here? And the definite answer was Adam and Eve, apples, talking snakes, the sun and the heavens rotated around the Earth as this was clearly observable, The Great Flood, every single animal on the planet and their food squeezed into a rather small boat for 40 day and nights, God speaking to people, parting the Red Sea, etc, etc.

We are part all part of God's grand plan, made in his image and the universe spins around us.

Today it's only a small lunatic fringe that still believe the Earth is flat, in Creationism and that the bible is the indisputable word of God. Adam and Eve = allegory. Noah's Ark = allegory. As man's knowledge of world about him has increased God has been on the retreat. The reason "those with faith inhabit a different but scientifically identical universe to you" is because they were wrong, completely wrong, about how we got here. So God now has to live as He, or they depending on you cultural preference, always did as explanations for things we don't know and may never know.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2748 on: January 29, 2015, 10:00:44 am »
As a rationalist when you start asking for proof or evidence or begin warbling on about unicorns, faeries, teapots, spaghetti monsters or Mourinho lizards then you are fundamentally missing the point

Bertrand Russell was a warbler? Very disrespectful to one of your finer British minds, VdeM.

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

    Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism:

    I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely. wiki

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2749 on: January 29, 2015, 10:52:50 am »
Hang on a minute. There was a time when one of the Big Questions was: How did we get here? And the definite answer was Adam and Eve, apples, talking snakes, the sun and the heavens rotated around the Earth as this was clearly observable, The Great Flood, every single animal on the planet and their food squeezed into a rather small boat for 40 day and nights, God speaking to people, parting the Red Sea, etc, etc.


Not if you lived in Mumbai.  You are conflating belief in a particular religion with theism vs atheism
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2750 on: January 29, 2015, 10:54:57 am »
Even the finest minds have their warbly moments Corky
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,684
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2751 on: January 29, 2015, 11:02:15 am »
The key thing here is that if you believe in God then you are effectively believing in a particular conception of the universe, one that has some divine and unknowable purpose or direction.  It may be governed by physical laws but those laws were instigated by some higher power. While we can continue to probe the universe scientifically and learn more about it we will never as living creatures within it know the full truth.

If you are a rationalist then you believe in a particular conception of the universe, one in which the universe just is, that it exists either through sub-atomic chance or because it always has, that universe is governed by physical laws because those laws are inherently necessary for the universe to exist as it does. Through scientific endeavour we can slowly unwrap the secrets of the universe until one day we may know it completely.

At that most basic summation then in all practical aspects you would actually struggle to slide a rizla between the two positions. They key difference is philosophical, which conception sits better with you. 

As a rationalist when you start asking for proof or evidence or begin warbling on about unicorns, faeries, teapots, spaghetti monsters or Mourinho lizards then you are fundamentally missing the point, those with faith inhabit a different but scientifically identical universe to you.


So the atheism question becomes which universe do you believe in?  You can either be firmly in one camp or the other or you can be unsure. If you are firmly in one camp then that is a decision taken on faith or lack of it. 

You have presented rationalism there as if it is the counter view to theism. Atheism is the counter view to theism, and you can be a theistic rationalist so introducing that term here just muddies the waters.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline zero zero

  • Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,533
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2752 on: January 29, 2015, 11:11:10 am »
Not if you lived in Mumbai.  You are conflating belief in a particular religion with theism vs atheism
No I'm not. I used the example of one theistic faith for brevity. You can replace any theistic claim for how man came to be and they'd all still be wrong. Not a single one said, oh btw we're descended from apes, even as an aside.


Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2753 on: January 29, 2015, 11:19:32 am »
No I'm not. I used the example of one theistic faith for brevity. You can replace any theistic claim for how man came to be and they'd all still be wrong. Not a single one said, oh btw we're descended from apes, even as an aside.



You are still confusing religion with theism, even if all religions on earth are proven to be bunkum it does not preclude the chance that there is a God.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2754 on: January 29, 2015, 11:23:40 am »
You have presented rationalism there as if it is the counter view to theism. Atheism is the counter view to theism, and you can be a theistic rationalist so introducing that term here just muddies the waters.

I was using Rationalist for people who demand a rational answer for everything.  I would consider your Theistic Rationalists to be fully subscribed members of my first universe. 

In fact I think Corky would haughtily dismiss Theistic Rationalists as Christians who are simply rewriting what has been disproved.   
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline IgoDirk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2755 on: January 29, 2015, 11:33:48 am »
As a rationalist when you start asking for proof or evidence or begin warbling on about unicorns, faeries, teapots, spaghetti monsters or Mourinho lizards then you are fundamentally missing the point, those with faith inhabit a different but scientifically identical universe to you.

So the atheism question becomes which universe do you believe in?  You can either be firmly in one camp or the other or you can be unsure. If you are firmly in one camp then that is a decision taken on faith or lack of it.

"Those with faith inhabit a different but scientifically identical universe to you".

Okay I'm struggling with this statement to be honest. How do you mean they inhabit a different universe?  I assume you mean they inhabit a different universe within their head. So a belief?  ???

I don't see how the discussions about teapots and unicorns are 'missing the point'. The questions about flying teapots are simply an efficient analogy to describe how it's impossible to disprove something that (in the head of an atheist) simply doesn't exist.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,382
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2756 on: January 29, 2015, 11:40:26 am »
In fact I think Corky would haughtily dismiss Theistic Rationalists as Christians who are simply rewriting what has been disproved.   

No, I'd say walking oxymorons.

Offline WillG.LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,260
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2757 on: January 29, 2015, 11:49:57 am »
As my earlier question remains unanswered, is there a similar 'belief' dished out to those who disagree with the big bang theory or string theory? The answer if you don't know or refuse to answer, is because its rediculous to designate not agreeing with someone as a belief system in its own right otherwise we would all be members of a million and one different 'beliefs'. Why we force people to be atheist is again because of the subject matter seemingly being outside the realms of normal logic.

If not we would have similar groups for every time you disagree with someones opinion (which we don't unless im mistaken)

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,684
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2758 on: January 29, 2015, 12:42:20 pm »
I was using Rationalist for people who demand a rational answer for everything.  I would consider your Theistic Rationalists to be fully subscribed members of my first universe. 

In fact I think Corky would haughtily dismiss Theistic Rationalists as Christians who are simply rewriting what has been disproved.   

So just to clarify you are saying that those people who believe in the God you describe have an irrational belief ?
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2759 on: January 29, 2015, 01:21:06 pm »
So just to clarify you are saying that those people who believe in the God you describe have an irrational belief ?

As I have defined God above then I would consider the insistance that we are in one universe or the other as irrational.  It is unknowable so the only rational position is to accept that joining either camp is a matter of choice/faith/belief
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'