Seriously, Dawkins?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It's one thing to hate an idea, but it is simply inhuman to talk about people's lives like this.

The atheist movement's biggest fault is failing to recognize the difference between right and correct.

I've always considered Dawkins a hindrance to the atheist movement. He just comes across as a pompous English douchebag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E

^This sums up my opinion on Dawkins pretty nicely.

I like this one myself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k

Granted, Dawkins is at least knowledgeable about it, but I think that the link sums up some.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS.  I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven).  Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.

Atheism is a belief. Or a lack of belief, rather. You can't put gods into test tubes. You can't have un-gods as controls. There is nothing scientific about religion or irreligion.

Atheists may be right, but there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Burden of proof lies on no one. Both positions are unprovable.

[Pope Lecherous]

For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS.  I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven).  Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.

Atheism is a belief. Or a lack of belief, rather. You can't put gods into test tubes. You can't have un-gods as controls. There is nothing scientific about religion or irreligion.

Atheists may be right, but there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Burden of proof lies on no one. Both positions are unprovable.

Thus, "atheists" who consider themselves scientists would rather be agnostic.  It's the difference between "Does God exist? No" and "Does God exist? I dont know (and if so inclined) I don't think so.  Maybe it's pedantic, but i consider it a crucial distinction when having a discussion about this subject.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS.  I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven).  Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.

Atheism is a belief. Or a lack of belief, rather. You can't put gods into test tubes. You can't have un-gods as controls. There is nothing scientific about religion or irreligion.

Atheists may be right, but there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Burden of proof lies on no one. Both positions are unprovable.

Thus, "atheists" who consider themselves scientists would rather be agnostic.  It's the difference between "Does God exist? No" and "Does God exist? I dont know (and if so inclined) I don't think so.  Maybe it's pedantic, but i consider it a crucial distinction when having a discussion about this subject.

Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

[Pope Lecherous]

Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

meh.

Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both?  An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work.  Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally.  But that divergence is there.

[Placid Dingo]

Dawkinsy Hitchensy shit is part of the reason Discordia attracted me in place of Atheism.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

meh.

Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both?  An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work.  Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally.  But that divergence is there.

Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.

And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"

But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Dawkinsy Hitchensy shit is part of the reason Discordia attracted me in place of Atheism.

Discordia attracts all types for different reasons. I came at it as a philosophical adjunct to Paganism (just as a Shintoist is also a Zen Buddhist). It's a good thing. Discordia has tempered my Pagan ways, though if you were to ask me my religion, I would still say Pagan, or at least Former Catholic. Deist if I don't feel like going through an unnecessarily long explanation.

[Kai]

Okay, just had to confirm he said that.

Thanks for that quote (couldnt display the image).  I knew Dawkins was a douche but i didnt think he was stupid.

_{Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?}

I think he's trying to reach a point somewhere in here, but even with the benefit of the doubt he needs to qualify a lot of these terms.  For example, unmitigated evil?  Give me a fucking break.  If Christian's want to give aid directly to suffering people and tell them fairy tales as well, that's fine with me.  No one is required to convert to receive aid as far as i know.  I suppose they should be grateful of the enlightenment he's offering from his high-horse... you know, instead of worrying about getting hacked apart by machetes, being forced to set their own children on fire, killed in other gruesome ways, or just plain ol' surviving after avoiding all of that.  

Goddamn Atheists are just another religion.

For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS.  I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven).  Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.

Actually, atheism (with a lowercase a) is a clear Bayesian reasoning chain in action. If you have so little evidence for something (essentially zero in this case), and your probability drops so close to zero, you take that position as false. Unless, of course, someone were to provide evidence, which would raise the probability, but no one has provided that evidence in the thousands of years people have been trying to. It's all either been antedoctal (like every holy book in existence) or filling in mysteries (which have been subsequently solved with science). It's simply a position, and there's no more to say about it than "I don't anticipate any deities or gods."

On the other hand, Atheism (with a capital A) is the above position wrapped in various worldviews, including that of Dawkins. In that sense it's no different than religion, given that Unitarian Universalism can be considered a religion, and it's basically a community with a worldview. And like all religions there will be douchebags who enjoy a little game called "ends justify the means".

[Kai]

Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

meh.

Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both?  An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work.  Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally.  But that divergence is there.

Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.

And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"

But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).

No see, the whole concept of deities is trash without the supernatural element, ie something that can violate and manipulate the laws of nature (and don't try to misunderstand what I mean there; I mean exactly what it says, violation the laws of nature is by definition impossible). If so called gods are actually just extraterrestrial beings of higher intelligence and ability, then they aren't really gods, they're just aliens. That's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. Not that there's any evidence of either.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

meh.

Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both?  An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work.  Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally.  But that divergence is there.

Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.

And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"

But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).

No see, the whole concept of deities is trash without the supernatural element, ie something that can violate and manipulate the laws of nature (and don't try to misunderstand what I mean there; I mean exactly what it says, violation the laws of nature is by definition impossible). If so called gods are actually just extraterrestrial beings of higher intelligence and ability, then they aren't really gods, they're just aliens. That's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. Not that there's any evidence of either.

Anything an existent deity could do would be natural rather than supernatural. If a being exists that can violate or manipulate the laws of nature as we know them are still working with the laws of nature. Not only can the supernatural not exist, but if gods are making the rules, then any rules they make are natural law. Any rules they suspend, also then become natural law. Booze is constitutional, even though for a brief period it was unconstitutional.

[Kai]

Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

meh.

Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both?  An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work.  Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally.  But that divergence is there.

Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.

And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"

But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).

No see, the whole concept of deities is trash without the supernatural element, ie something that can violate and manipulate the laws of nature (and don't try to misunderstand what I mean there; I mean exactly what it says, violation the laws of nature is by definition impossible). If so called gods are actually just extraterrestrial beings of higher intelligence and ability, then they aren't really gods, they're just aliens. That's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. Not that there's any evidence of either.

Anything an existent deity could do would be natural rather than supernatural. If a being exists that can violate or manipulate the laws of nature as we know them are still working with the laws of nature. Not only can the supernatural not exist, but if gods are making the rules, then any rules they make are natural law. Any rules they suspend, also then become natural law. Booze is constitutional, even though for a brief period it was unconstitutional.

No, that's false, and that's completely missing the point. Moving faster than the speed of life, for example, is physically impossible for any object. If a being could do so, and any other being could not just by merit of having sufficient technology and the knowledge, it would be supernatural, as it violates physical laws which are by definition unbreakable. You're bending definitions to fit your argument. Quit it. Especially equating the definition of natural/physical Law with human laws. They are not the same thing, you know it, so stop acting like you don't.

The whole point of deities is they are of a class of being outside of physical reality, ie the rules don't apply because they are above and outside the rules.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

meh.

Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both?  An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work.  Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally.  But that divergence is there.

Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.

And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"

But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).

No see, the whole concept of deities is trash without the supernatural element, ie something that can violate and manipulate the laws of nature (and don't try to misunderstand what I mean there; I mean exactly what it says, violation the laws of nature is by definition impossible). If so called gods are actually just extraterrestrial beings of higher intelligence and ability, then they aren't really gods, they're just aliens. That's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. Not that there's any evidence of either.

Anything an existent deity could do would be natural rather than supernatural. If a being exists that can violate or manipulate the laws of nature as we know them are still working with the laws of nature. Not only can the supernatural not exist, but if gods are making the rules, then any rules they make are natural law. Any rules they suspend, also then become natural law. Booze is constitutional, even though for a brief period it was unconstitutional.

No, that's false, and that's completely missing the point. Moving faster than the speed of life, for example, is physically impossible for any object. If a being could do so, and any other being could not just by merit of having sufficient technology and the knowledge, it would be supernatural, as it violates physical laws which are by definition unbreakable. You're bending definitions to fit your argument. Quit it. Especially equating the definition of natural/physical Law with human laws. They are not the same thing, you know it, so stop acting like you don't.

The whole point of deities is they are of a class of being outside of physical reality, ie the rules don't apply because they are above and outside the rules.

You're making assumptions to my thought processes. I'm not bending definitions. And I'm not making any arguments here and I didn't mention anything about human laws. So what ever I know stop acting like it's obvious to me.

The only thing I'm saying is that the word god is meaningless.
Also, since it was brought up, the word supernatural is meaningless, because anything that is possible is natural, otherwise it couldn't happen.

[Faust]

Okay, just had to confirm he said that.

Thanks for that quote (couldnt display the image).  I knew Dawkins was a douche but i didnt think he was stupid.

_{Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?}

I think he's trying to reach a point somewhere in here, but even with the benefit of the doubt he needs to qualify a lot of these terms.  For example, unmitigated evil?  Give me a fucking break.  If Christian's want to give aid directly to suffering people and tell them fairy tales as well, that's fine with me.  No one is required to convert to receive aid as far as i know.  I suppose they should be grateful of the enlightenment he's offering from his high-horse... you know, instead of worrying about getting hacked apart by machetes, being forced to set their own children on fire, killed in other gruesome ways, or just plain ol' surviving after avoiding all of that.  

Goddamn Atheists are just another religion.

For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS.  I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven).  Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.

Actually, atheism (with a lowercase a) is a clear Bayesian reasoning chain in action. If you have so little evidence for something (essentially zero in this case), and your probability drops so close to zero, you take that position as false. Unless, of course, someone were to provide evidence, which would raise the probability, but no one has provided that evidence in the thousands of years people have been trying to. It's all either been antedoctal (like every holy book in existence) or filling in mysteries (which have been subsequently solved with science). It's simply a position, and there's no more to say about it than "I don't anticipate any deities or gods."

Of course the word god is meaningless in a scientific context due to it having no clear definition. One can easily say all religious beliefs are false using the above reasoning, but the statement  "I don't anticipate any deities or gods." Is absolutely meaningless and doesn't pertain to anything. Ask any two people to define god and you get different answers. The issues is scientifically moot.

[Telarus]

The symbol/concept 'Deity' has gone through a whole lot of transitions, and probably goes past meaningless to become Useless. It's currently accepted as the "beyond the natural laws" definition Kai presented, but this is mostly due to the "watchmaker God" theory that paralleled the lead up to the industrial revolution, pushing "God into the Gaps" as more science was nailed down into symbols.

Previous to that, Gods were very often wholly bound to the "laws of reality" as one of their rules.... but at the time these would have been better called the "Laws of our current mythologized Narrative of Reality". But technology, knowledge, etc, etc, were all bound up in the same Narrative tradition. Anyone who had seen the Atikythera Machine in action would have known of Hephaestus the Crippled.

Cuchulain could not escape the 'laws of his Reality'. Odin, as another example, is bound to his fate of witnessing Ragnarok and the destruction of all in the Final Battle. That's why He's tending bar for Eris in Her Limbo pad, nothing better to do that serve drinks, play pinball with Cthulhu, and fuck with hallucinating mortals.