Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[crashtestdummy]

No, my friend...I am not. I'm speaking of the manner in which that, and similar quotes made by others like Weinberg, are circulated and repeated as gospel by atheists.

Claiming that atheists lack a moral and ethical foundation is one of the oldest and most common tactics used to discredit them. As a result, atheists tend to be particularly sensitive for the claim, and hence the repetition of the counter-claim.

This sense that atheists have at bare minimum an unpredictable set of morals has led to widespread distrust. Nearly half of the country wouldn't vote for an atheist president on that fact alone. That's, amazingly, a drastic improvement over historical numbers, but even only 58% of Democrats would vote for an atheist. I do believe that these numbers would be different if people were faced with an actual candidate that seemed to reflect their views (see: the shift of the opinion of Mormons among Republican voters during Romney's candidacy), but they do reflect our preconceived notions as a society.

Some people do just that, but when folks change religion, that could mean that they've found what they consider as "true", so while I do agree with you, that isn't universal.

That's fair, and it's exceptionally difficult to come up with empirical evidence distinguishing the difference between the two. The closest I can think of are things like Kumare, where someone can create an intentionally fake religion that generates sincere followers. Even this, though, is merely anecdotal and not reflective of the greater population as a whole.

FWIW, there are elements of truth in every religion, but that doesn't mean every religion is true.

I think what some of the other posters are trying to get at is what makes you feel that you have found the true religion? I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief, but those other religions have sincere followers as well. If the Torah, the New Testament, the Koran, the Mahabharata, and the Tripitaka all proclaim themselves as fully and completely true, the reader must find a way to either reconcile them, choose one, or choose none.

I'm interested in why you made the selection you did. You mentioned having once been an atheist, so it clearly wasn't a matter of you simply accepting what was given to you as a child. Somewhere in the process, you looked at the Bible and said "this is right" in a universal sense. What triggered that notion?

On a personal level, I chose none when it comes to theology, but Judaism as a cultural language. I don't see the universe as being measurably different with God or without God, so I simply live as if there were no God. I am, however, a Jew. Judaism is for me a language. It contains a cultural context in which to discuss a wide range of issues. That choice of language is merely arbitrary, decided mostly by a combination of my own background and my wife's choice of career. That doesn't mean that it's useless (far from it), but it also isn't inherently superior to other cultural languages. It's more like comparing Spanish and English than right and wrong.

 

[jhbball]

Be careful the assumptions you make. They seem to be leading you astray.

Are my assumptions incorrect? Or are you just being cryptic?

 

[Retro Rob]

Claiming that atheists lack a moral and ethical foundation is one of the oldest and most common tactics used to discredit them. As a result, atheists tend to be particularly sensitive for the claim, and hence the repetition of the counter-claim.

I didn't say atheists lack a moral foundation. If I said that, I'd be lying...I don't know a lot of non-believers, but I know that they have good moral foundations.

This sense that atheists have at bare minimum an unpredictable set of morals has led to widespread distrust. Nearly half of the country wouldn't vote for an atheist president on that fact alone.

And why do you think that is? Are you aware of how the so-called "New Atheists", fell about religion, or how Woody Allen described himself as a "militant Atheist"? What if a Methodist said he was a "Militant Methodist" living in an atheist country, or what about one of Sam Harris' quotes:

"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people who believe in them". -- Sam Harris.

See how religious people are criticized as "bigoted", "stupid", "delusional" by atheists in this country, and then expect these people to vote for you? If this is a reason, I cannot blame the religious in America for distrusting those completely opposed to the majority.

These more intellectual atheists are increasing intolerant of religious beliefs. For this reason, I wouldn't really trust atheists who may, if they had the chance, try to abolish religious freedom. I would think this is why religious politicians are generally preferred because we live in an overwhelmingly religion country.

That's, amazingly, a drastic improvement over historical numbers, but even only 58% of Democrats would vote for an atheist. I do believe that these numbers would be different if people were faced with an actual candidate that seemed to reflect their views (see: the shift of the opinion of Mormons among Republican voters during Romney's candidacy), but they do reflect our preconceived notions as a society.

Agreed.

 

[alzan]

And why do you think that is? Are you aware of how the so-called "New Atheists", fell about religion, or how Woody Allen described himself as a "militant Atheist"? What if a Methodist said he was a "Militant Methodist" living in an atheist country, or what about one of Sam Harris' quotes:

"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people who believe in them". -- Sam Harris.

See how religious people are criticized as "bigoted", "stupid", "delusional" by atheists in this country, and then expect these people to vote for you? If this is a reason, I cannot blame the religious in America for distrusting those completely opposed to the majority.

These more intellectual atheists are increasing intolerant of religious beliefs. For this reason, I wouldn't really trust atheists who may, if they had the chance, try to abolish religious freedom. I would think this is why religious politicians are generally preferred because we live in an overwhelmingly religion country.

I'm not versed in the quotes of the "New Atheists" but I wouldn't be surprised if those are inexact/inaccurate quotes. The word "militant" does not necessarily mean violent or fomenting violence. Likewise I suspect the Sam Harris quote is inaccurate. I may be wrong, it's happened at least once before.

I think it more likely that Woody Allen, Sam Harris and others are distrustful of the zealotry and extremism of some of the religious. I think it's perfectly acceptable to mistrust an extremist Muslim but unacceptable to mistrust all Muslims. Likewise I mistrust extremist Christians, who seek not to convert me or kill me, but seek to force their views on the community via school prayer, Creationism, etc.

I also find those who would distrust someone simply because their views are opposed to the majority as extremely misguided and unaware of what this country is about. The minority has the same rights as the majority, and the USSC (of various makeups) has upheld that principle again and again.

I'm unaware of any atheist, new or otherwise, who seeks to abolish religious freedom. If you have any links I'll happily read them and retract my statement.

Edit: I stand corrected, that is indeed an actual quote from Mr. Harris. Which I also disagree with and find abhorrent.

Dang, now I've been wrong twice.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So, all you really want to is attack believers and their beliefs, while not having to defend your position.

that`s SOP for these people.....ask questions and dodge a weave answering questions...

 

[crashtestdummy]

I didn't say atheists lack a moral foundation. If I said that, I'd be lying...I don't know a lot of non-believers, but I know that they have good moral foundations.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything so much as explain why we're always so hair-trigger sensitive about that particular topic.

I originally asked you to clarify your response because I assumed that you were saying something other than "atheists lacked morals", and was hoping you'd reply with a different explanation (which you did). I probably could have chosen less confrontational language.

And why do you think that is? Are you aware of how the so-called "New Atheists", fell about religion, or how Woody Allen described himself as a "militant Atheist"? What if a Methodist said he was a "Militant Methodist" living in an atheist country, or what about one of Sam Harris' quotes:

"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people who believe in them". -- Sam Harris.

I don't know the context of the Woody Allen quote, but most of the time, those who describe themselves as "militant atheists" are making a tongue-in-cheek description of being on the opposite end of what they see as "militant Christians" (i.e. fundamentalist conservatives). I agree that such a characterization is not politically correct, but I don't think most of the people describing themselves that way actually want to go to war.

As for Sam Harris... to be honest, I had never heard of him before two months ago, but he seems like the Ann Coulter of atheists, saying stupid things just to get a rise out of the other side.

See how religious people are criticized as "bigoted", "stupid", "delusional" by atheists in this country, and then expect these people to vote for you? If this is a reason, I cannot blame the religious in America for distrusting those completely opposed to the majority.

The religious say similar things of atheists all the time, yet we continue to vote for people who are religious. (I've never heard of an atheist that was only voting for atheist candidates, though I'm sure one exists somewhere and doesn't vote.)

These more intellectual atheists are increasing intolerant of religious beliefs. For this reason, I wouldn't really trust atheists who may, if they had the chance, try to abolish religious freedom. I would think this is why religious politicians are generally preferred because we live in an overwhelmingly religion country.

I'm curious as to what you view as "abolishing religious freedom" and where you've felt atheists have attempted to do so. I would agree that atheists organizations occasionally make demands that are at best petty (like an atheist plaque next to a Christian memorial), but I don't know of too many examples of them actually interfering with religious practice. Perhaps we have a different perception of the impact of things like school prayer, however.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Edit: I stand corrected, that is indeed an actual quote from Mr. Harris. Which I also disagree with and find abhorrent.

:thumbsup:

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not versed in the quotes of the "New Atheists" but I wouldn't be surprised if those are inexact/inaccurate quotes. The word "militant" does not necessarily mean violent or fomenting violence. Likewise I suspect the Sam Harris quote is inaccurate. I may be wrong, it's happened at least once before.

Its from his book, "End of Faith". I think the word "Proposition" is the correct word instead of "Belief", but I think his point remains the same.

"Militant" is simply a word that no person should attribute to themselves given the history behind "militant" dictators and such.

I think it more likely that Woody Allen, Sam Harris and others are distrustful of the zealotry and extremism of some of the religious. I think it's perfectly acceptable to mistrust an extremist Muslim but unacceptable to mistrust all Muslims.

Check out Harris' views on religious moderates:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/times-of-london

He seems to not make a clear distinction between that and extremism. I'd say he's against all religion, in all forms.

Likewise I mistrust extremist Christians, who seek not to convert me or kill me, but seek to force their views on the community via school prayer, Creationism, etc.

I agree.

I also find those who would distrust someone simply because their views are opposed to the majority as extremely misguided and unaware of what this country is about. The minority has the same rights as the majority, and the USSC (of various makeups) has upheld that principle again and again

I think you're missing my point. This isn't about rights, its about perception. That matters in politics, I'd say. If people think you're a bigot or a racist, you won't get many votes, for example.

I'm unaware of any atheist, new or otherwise, who seeks to abolish religious freedom. If you have any links I'll happily read them and retract my statement.

I don't think there are, but I was saying there may be some who would. I just think there is a perception, the same one the exists as regards atheists being unethical and immoral. I don't feel that way at all, but I'm just one person.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No semantics. It is quite clear.

Yes it is quite clear, but as you know Atheists use the word semantics to try to explain away your beliefs or certain words that you might use to describe your beliefs. To be honest the word - semantics when used by an Atheist when talking with a believer in God or a Christian is just another Atheist talking point!!

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything so much as explain why we're always so hair-trigger sensitive about that particular topic.

I originally asked you to clarify your response because I assumed that you were saying something other than "atheists lacked morals", and was hoping you'd reply with a different explanation (which you did). I probably could have chosen less confrontational language.

Misunderstandings happen -- no biggie.

I don't know the context of the Woody Allen quote, but most of the time, those who describe themselves as "militant atheists" are making a tongue-in-cheek description of being on the opposite end of what they see as "militant Christians" (i.e. fundamentalist conservatives). I agree that such a characterization is not politically correct, but I don't think most of the people describing themselves that way actually want to go to war.

I don't think they're violent, either. The word just has a sordid history attached to it, so much so that calling yourself a militant anything is irrational, in my opinion.

As for Sam Harris... to be honest, I had never heard of him before two months ago, but he seems like the Ann Coulter of atheists, saying stupid things just to get a rise out of the other side.

Fwiw, I like Sam Harris, to be honest with you...but I think he's serious. I've watched some public debates of his, and that theme reoccurs time and time again. I think he hates religion, just as much as Dawkins does.

I don't want to associate that word with them, but the more the speak on the topic of religion, it shines through.

The religious say similar things of atheists all the time, yet we continue to vote for people who are religious. (I've never heard of an atheist that was only voting for atheist candidates, though I'm sure one exists somewhere and doesn't vote.)

Again, this is correct. But what I think I'm saying is that since atheism is in the minority, and we haven't knowingly had an atheist Presidential candidate (correct me if my history is off), I think that launching ad hominem attacks on religious people isn't going to help.

Personally, I don't care if we have an atheist President...I just think most religious people do care, perhaps for some of the reasons I outlined.

I'm curious as to what you view as "abolishing religious freedom" and where you've felt atheists have attempted to do so.

"Abolishing" was too coarse a word, when I read this line...I'd say limit it, to just inside of a building, or Church, and not the home. Like for instance, making it illegal to teach kids our beliefs if it clashes with science.

I would agree that atheists organizations occasionally make demands that are at best petty (like an atheist plaque next to a Christian memorial), but I don't know of too many examples of them actually interfering with religious practice. Perhaps we have a different perception of the impact of things like school prayer, however.

When it comes to school prayer, I'm opposed to that personally. One thing I learned is that everyone doesn't share my beliefs, so imposing school prayer means that Muslim kids, or atheists children would have to acknowledge my beliefs, by force.

This is part of the reason why I am not a Conservative....in the political sense of the word. I hold conservative views, but am not part of the political stripe.

 

[serpretetsky]

"Truth" is highly subjective. For the more athiestic people, "truth" usually involves some sort of scientific proof. For the people who believe in a deity, truth is often more personal/spiritual. Trying to argue God's existance or non existance using one or the other is useless.


Scientific proofs in the real world are never 100% certain (unlike in the world of mathematics) because they must be built upon tests that are not 100% certain. The tests must be repeatable and give the same results when they are performed in the same conditions. The problem is: who's to say that the test is successful the next time you try it. None the less, the scientists must make the assumption that if an apple falls when you let go of it 1000 times, then there is a high probability that it will fall on the 1001th time.

You need to be able to test something to scientifically prove it exists. You also need to be able to test if it DOESN'T exist.

How do you scientifically prove that God, an entity that is defined as a being above the laws of our universe, who is able to observe and interract as he pleases, exists or doesn't?

It's like creating an AI, Adam, that exists solely to make some sort of contact and document evidence of a world outside its own virtual confines. The only trouble is, you, as the creator, makes sure that the AI has no access to the physical world unless you grant it. Adam will never be able to offer evidence, even though some human or group of humans programmed him, until the humans break the barrier and present themselves. It's not within Adam's control.

Similarly, until the creator presents himself to everyone, it's not really possible to prove he does exist either. You can make the claim that he has presented himself to you, but that definitely doesn't help the rest of the population. Matters get even worse when the more scientific stubborn will simply attribute God's "presence" as some electro chemical reaction occurring in the brain. In other words, it doesn't help Adam, our AI, get evidence of an outside world if you introduce another AI that keeps spouting "I have seen the outside world!".

Proving God exists or doesn't, scientifically, is basically impossible. If you can't prove God exists or doesn't, it's then impossible to prove anything since God can change anything he wills (who's to say he makes that 1001th test a success). Scientific proofs ultimately become not a universal source of truth, but instead a tool that is known to fail for certain tasks. God might allow you test for neutrons in the atom, but he might NEVER allow you test for his own existence. It is his will. So asking someone for a scientific proof of God is pointless. However, scientific proofs may still be useful in a world with God, you just have to hope that the test you are about to perform is one that God wills.

It becomes more clear, then, why someone who would believe in God would give less importance to any scientific test. What's the point of a scientific test if it's not part of God's design, and therefore will not give the truth you search for. All truth will ultimately be controlled by God, and he will let it flow or not when it is time. You should always use the right tool for the right job. Trying to use any form of scientific test or physical evidence of God's existence is a worthless pursuit. You will get nowhere.

However, there is also the concept of countering a proof by offering an alternative that is possible. You can claim that God's existence is not certain because every phenonmen performed by God can either be explained by human's poor mind, poor record keeping skills, or just rare natural phenomenon. Notice that countering the proof that God exists, in this example, DOES NOT IMPLY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. It does not get you closer to the truth, it simply let's you realize you know less than you thought.

You can, perhaps, claim that a world without God is the simpler solution that makes more intuitive sense (not really a proof of anything, but let's roll with it). But that's hardly even an argument, as the opposite side will say the exact same thing back to you but in a world with a God.

You might think that claiming that there is "nothing" outside the universe is where everyone should start there arguments, but I would argue that is not correct. Claiming "nothing" is out there is just as rediculous as claiming there is "something" out there. Ultimately, it's useless and pointless unless it actually affects you or your world in some way.

Our AI, Adam, can sit and claim that he has evidence for a creator or not all day long(regardless whether or not he actually HAS evidence). It's irrelevant if it changes nothing within him or his world.


I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is:
YOU CAN"T PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE OR NON EXISTENCE USING ANY SORT OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

YOU ALSO CAN'T PROVE GOD's EXISTENCE USING YOUR OWN PERSONAL/SPIRITUAL TRUTHS.

GOD'S EXISTANCE IS SOMETHING THAT WILL FOREVER BE A PERSONAL TRUTH, UNSHARABLE BY ANY FORM OF COMMUNICATION.

 

[alzan]

Its from his book, "End of Faith". I think the word "Proposition" is the correct word instead of "Belief", but I think his point remains the same.

"Militant" is simply a word that no person should attribute to themselves given the history behind "militant" dictators and such.

Check out Harris' views on religious moderates:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/times-of-london

He seems to not make a clear distinction between that and extremism. I'd say he's against all religion, in all forms.

I agree.

I think you're missing my point. This isn't about rights, its about perception. That matters in politics, I'd say. If people think you're a bigot or a racist, you won't get many votes, for example.

I don't think there are, but I was saying there may be some who would. I just think there is a perception, the same one the exists as regards atheists being unethical and immoral. I don't feel that way at all, but I'm just one person.

That's unfortunate for Mr. Harris, he seems an intelligent man but he's a little too quick to paint with a mile wide brush; something we've all fallen victim to from time to time. To his and others discredit he overlooks the good the religious and religious faith has done over the course of history. I'd like to think that I've made my little corner of the world a better place; I can't ask anymore of anyone else, of any faith or of none.

I think it's true that it is about perception, in politics as well as other areas of life. It's also about rights as some people I've encountered and read/listened to do think that the majority rules and the minority can just deal with it; the bumper sticker-philosophy of "America, Love It or Leave It" for example.

Maybe not at the state or federal level but certainly in some local elections outright bigots and racists have been elected and re-elected, if for no other reason than some peoples comfort level of putting someone in office who thinks like they do.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I don't think they're violent, either. The word just has a sordid history attached to it, so much so that calling yourself a militant anything is irrational, in my opinion.

I think we're both on the same side of that one.

Fwiw, I like Sam Harris, to be honest with you...but I think he's serious. I've watched some public debates of his, and that theme reoccurs time and time again. I think he hates religion, just as much as Dawkins does.

I hope you're wrong, but fear you're right. To be fair though, Dawkins hates religion, but at least doesn't advocate shooting religious people. Even Dawkins does not advocate abolishing religion, either. I'm not really a fan of either, but this Sam Harris seems to be a special kind of repugnant.

Again, this is correct. But what I think I'm saying is that since atheism is in the minority, and we haven't knowingly had an atheist Presidential candidate (correct me if my history is off), I think that launching ad hominem attacks on religious people isn't going to help.

Personally, I don't care if we have an atheist President...I just think most religious people do care, perhaps for some of the reasons I outlined.

And I guess I'd say that I'm disappointed that people haven't learned to have a bit more empathy with those different from themselves, and wouldn't be so quick to associate the words of a few with the words of an entire group.

My (very non-traditional) Ketubah contains the line "we will always assume the other is doing the best they can." I try to keep this line of thinking in general. I'm not always right, but when I'm wrong, I'm wrong in the better direction.

"Abolishing" was too coarse a word, when I read this line...I'd say limit it, to just inside of a building, or Church, and not the home. Like for instance, making it illegal to teach kids our beliefs if it clashes with science.

Again, we're on the same side of this one. I would view such a requirement as a most egregious violation of the first amendment, as well as being simply a poor practical idea. Banning religious discussion would be unbelievably counter-productive for everyone. As for schools, I do not support teaching creationism in a science class, but I do think it is important for school kids to have some kind of comparative religion education. We hurt our ability to communicate as a society when we remove our cultural context entirely from the classroom.

When it comes to school prayer, I'm opposed to that personally. One thing I learned is that everyone doesn't share my beliefs, so imposing school prayer means that Muslim kids, or atheists children would have to acknowledge my beliefs, by force.

This is part of the reason why I am not a Conservative....in the political sense of the word. I hold conservative views, but am not part of the political stripe.

I always find it interesting that no matter how much you and I disagree on many matters of philosophy, we tend to heavily overlap when it actually comes to policy relating to those topics.

 

[moonbogg]

I'm convinced of one thing. If there is a god, then this god is much greater than any picture that religion can hope to paint. Given the depth and scope of the universe, and all that we have yet to become aware of, makes something like Christianity seem like a pathetic joke that no one should hesitate to toss aside when faced with the reality of what god might actually be.
Being so small and unaware, there is no way to confirm any god, so I take the position of not knowing, therefore, disbelief is my position. I could be god experiencing his own creation and would have no way of knowing even that, so there is little point in trying to figure it out without some kind of evidence. Without evidence, any wild speculation is just as good as the next.

 

[sandorski]

"Truth" is highly subjective. For the more athiestic people, "truth" usually involves some sort of scientific proof. For the people who believe in a deity, truth is often more personal/spiritual. Trying to argue God's existance or non existance using one or the other is useless.


Scientific proofs in the real world are never 100% certain (unlike in the world of mathematics) because they must be built upon tests that are not 100% certain. The tests must be repeatable and give the same results when they are performed in the same conditions. The problem is: who's to say that the test is successful the next time you try it. None the less, the scientists must make the assumption that if an apple falls when you let go of it 1000 times, then there is a high probability that it will fall on the 1001th time.

You need to be able to test something to scientifically prove it exists. You also need to be able to test if it DOESN'T exist.

How do you scientifically prove that God, an entity that is defined as a being above the laws of our universe, who is able to observe and interract as he pleases, exists or doesn't?

It's like creating an AI, Adam, that exists solely to make some sort of contact and document evidence of a world outside its own virtual confines. The only trouble is, you, as the creator, makes sure that the AI has no access to the physical world unless you grant it. Adam will never be able to offer evidence, even though some human or group of humans programmed him, until the humans break the barrier and present themselves. It's not within Adam's control.

Similarly, until the creator presents himself to everyone, it's not really possible to prove he does exist either. You can make the claim that he has presented himself to you, but that definitely doesn't help the rest of the population. Matters get even worse when the more scientific stubborn will simply attribute God's "presence" as some electro chemical reaction occurring in the brain. In other words, it doesn't help Adam, our AI, get evidence of an outside world if you introduce another AI that keeps spouting "I have seen the outside world!".

Proving God exists or doesn't, scientifically, is basically impossible. If you can't prove God exists or doesn't, it's then impossible to prove anything since God can change anything he wills (who's to say he makes that 1001th test a success). Scientific proofs ultimately become not a universal source of truth, but instead a tool that is known to fail for certain tasks. God might allow you test for neutrons in the atom, but he might NEVER allow you test for his own existence. It is his will. So asking someone for a scientific proof of God is pointless. However, scientific proofs may still be useful in a world with God, you just have to hope that the test you are about to perform is one that God wills.

It becomes more clear, then, why someone who would believe in God would give less importance to any scientific test. What's the point of a scientific test if it's not part of God's design, and therefore will not give the truth you search for. All truth will ultimately be controlled by God, and he will let it flow or not when it is time. You should always use the right tool for the right job. Trying to use any form of scientific test or physical evidence of God's existence is a worthless pursuit. You will get nowhere.

However, there is also the concept of countering a proof by offering an alternative that is possible. You can claim that God's existence is not certain because every phenonmen performed by God can either be explained by human's poor mind, poor record keeping skills, or just rare natural phenomenon. Notice that countering the proof that God exists, in this example, DOES NOT IMPLY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. It does not get you closer to the truth, it simply let's you realize you know less than you thought.

You can, perhaps, claim that a world without God is the simpler solution that makes more intuitive sense (not really a proof of anything, but let's roll with it). But that's hardly even an argument, as the opposite side will say the exact same thing back to you but in a world with a God.

You might think that claiming that there is "nothing" outside the universe is where everyone should start there arguments, but I would argue that is not correct. Claiming "nothing" is out there is just as rediculous as claiming there is "something" out there. Ultimately, it's useless and pointless unless it actually affects you or your world in some way.

Our AI, Adam, can sit and claim that he has evidence for a creator or not all day long(regardless whether or not he actually HAS evidence). It's irrelevant if it changes nothing within him or his world.


I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is:
YOU CAN"T PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE OR NON EXISTENCE USING ANY SORT OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

YOU ALSO CAN'T PROVE GOD's EXISTENCE USING YOUR OWN PERSONAL/SPIRITUAL TRUTHS.

GOD'S EXISTANCE IS SOMETHING THAT WILL FOREVER BE A PERSONAL TRUTH, UNSHARABLE BY ANY FORM OF COMMUNICATION.

I mostly agree, but will diverge on one aspect of it. That is on your first point, sorta.

All through history and even today Theists make various claims of their god(s) interacting in the Natural World. These claims vary from Miracles to Weather/Geologic events. If it were true that these things were caused by a deity, then there would be traces of unexplainable occurrences to account for them, thus indicating supernatural intervention. Still not a solid indication of god(s), but at least something to support the hypothesis.

That said, Theists claiming to Know god(s) and make pronouncements attributing various things as actions of god(s) have all been proven wrong every single time except when it's a claim of a Personal nature.

IOW, those who support the hypothesis have always been shown to be wrong by any measure that could be used Scientifically. Which is why Science has long since abandoned any serious theistic investigative endeavours. There's always a fringe who claim to be doing Science to prove Theistic claims, but they mostly focus on peripheral issues(Creation, Flood, etc) to god existence and for the most part they don't do Science as much as Sciency sounding Public Relations.

 

[sandorski]

Its from his book, "End of Faith". I think the word "Proposition" is the correct word instead of "Belief", but I think his point remains the same.

"Militant" is simply a word that no person should attribute to themselves given the history behind "militant" dictators and such.

Check out Harris' views on religious moderates:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/times-of-london

He seems to not make a clear distinction between that and extremism. I'd say he's against all religion, in all forms.

I agree.

I think you're missing my point. This isn't about rights, its about perception. That matters in politics, I'd say. If people think you're a bigot or a racist, you won't get many votes, for example.

I don't think there are, but I was saying there may be some who would. I just think there is a perception, the same one the exists as regards atheists being unethical and immoral. I don't feel that way at all, but I'm just one person.

What Harris is saying is that the Moderate Theists provide a Safe Haven for Extremists. Not by embracing the Extremists, but by embracing the very same Religious Texts that Extremists use to justify their extremist views.

 

[Retro Rob]

What Harris is saying is that the Moderate Theists provide a Safe Haven for Extremists. Not by embracing the Extremists, but by embracing the very same Religious Texts that Extremists use to justify their extremist views.

Basically, moderates are harboring extremism...in other words, so to rid the world of extremists, we need to get rid of the moderates too.

He's not hiding his extreme religious intolerance under such a view.

 

[sandorski]

Basically, moderates are harboring extremism...in other words, so to rid the world of extremists, we need to get rid of the moderates too.

He's not hiding his extreme religious intolerance under such a view.

He is not advocating Violence. He is advocating Persuasion.

 

[Retro Rob]

He is not advocating Violence. He is advocating Persuasion.

Could I equally say that science provides a "Safe Haven" for extremist who use underwear bombs because they follow the same basic formulas used by those who make circuit boards?

What being exposed here, his the prejudice of people like Harris.

 

[sandorski]

Could I equally say that science provides a cover for extremist who use underwear bombs because they follow the same basic formulas used by those who make circuit boards?

What being exposed here, his the prejudice of people like Harris.

No, because no where in Science is there a Dogma of violence.

He gives a Reason for his position. Certainly he holds a negative opinion of Moderates, but it is by definition not prejudice.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, because no where in Science is there a Dogma of violence.

There doesn't have to be a dogma of violence, as evident by people using science to simply kill people (i.e, the advent of nuclear/chemical weapons).

No one needs an excuse for violence these days.

 

[sandorski]

There doesn't have to be a dogma of violence, as evidence by people using science to simply kill people (i.e, the advent of nuclear/chemical weapons).

No one needs an excuse for violence these days.

There does if you are going to blame something for someone elses motivations.

 

[Retro Rob]

There does if you are going to blame something for someone elses motivations.

People fight and kill nowadays over control and influence. The two Great Wars of the 20th Century (which killed more people than all the religious wars of our history combined) wasn't religiously motivated, though religion heavily participated.

The days of blaming religion for everything are over. Stop using that as a crutch and a reason to justify irrational hatred.

 

[sandorski]

People fight and kill nowadays over control and influence. The two Great Wars of the 20th Century (which killed more people than all the religious wars of our history combined) wasn't religiously motivated, though religion heavily participated.

The days of blaming religion for everything are over. Stop using that as a crutch and a reason to justify irrational hatred.

I am not blaming Religion for everything. However, there are Millions of people willing to die for Beliefs that are not based on any demonstrable reality. All these people are Theists of one form or another. That is demonstrable and is not irrational.

 

[Retro Rob]

I am not blaming Religion for everything. However, there are Millions of people willing to die for Beliefs that are not based on any demonstrable reality. All these people are Theists of one form or another. That is demonstrable and is not irrational.

Die how? I know many who are not willing to compromise (or turn their backs on God for the sake of living) and die as a result, then you have those willing to die in the process of killing others.

You're failing to make that distinction clear, and I understand why -- it hurts your generalization of all "theists" (demonstrating again how you're not being clear, intentionally, on what "theists" you're referring to). :whiste:

All theists are not the same, don't believe the same, and don't practice their beliefs in the same manner, yet, you're being ambiguous in your assessment.