Dawkins banned due to atheism

[Badran]

I agree with that definition, and I would like to point out that various religions certainly have many things that we can evidentially show to be not true.

Various religions containing many things that supposedly can be shown to be not true isn't the same as referring to religion in general, or any religious idea like that, and including in the concept of god for example. In other words, i of course agree that some religious ideas can be shown to not be true as proposed, however the question is which are those.

When you refer to an idea that can not be falsified for example, an idea which has no evidence to counter for another example, you can't say the same things, which is why again i think and hope thats why Dawkins said "i think" in regards to that specific part from what he was talking about in that video.

Which is why using the "truth supersedes" argument, and talking about rational and irrational in that part as if you can know that was not accurate in my view. That was all i was trying to point out.

Other religions have concepts that are completely unfounded and unsupported by any evidence at all, for instance the notion of a soul, and if allowed to be considered true, then what stops the infinite number of other things for which we have no evidence to be considered true?

I didn't say we should consider them true at all, or in the same sense or level we consider evidenced and/or proved things to be true. However when someone considers them true, calling him irrational or deluded based on supposed knowledge of the real truth is what i disagree with.

While I agree that 'truth' is a tentative concept, through the scientific method we have been able to discern a lot more about how reality works than we have ever been able to before.
Hence, those things that we have evidence for must logically be considered to be more 'true' than those for which we have none.

I do agree in a sense with what you're saying, like i tried to explain this isn't something i was trying to challenge. I wasn't saying we shouldn't differentiate between evidenced things and things that have no evidence to support them.

The Oxford Dictionary defines rationalism as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic", which means that concepts that defy logic cannot justifiably be considered rational.
There are plenty of such concepts to be found in various religions.

And again various religions supposedly containing plenty of such ideas isn't the same as talking about religion in general, or the same as using it in a specified case where in fact it doesn't apply, or claiming superiority in general to a position based on generalizing that.

Well, given that none of us are, in fact, Dawkins, nor have any easily available way to determine his intentions, I'll be happy to agree to disagree on this particular point.

Cool

If we consider nothing to be true, where does that leave us?

I hope you can see what i'm saying now.

And if we are to consider some things to be true, what should be our criteria?

Like i indicated above, generally and normally, evidenced things should be considered on a higher level than those which are not.

Which for many, it seems, is an emotional response, and therefore not rational.

I didn't say that nobody dismisses him or dislike him based on that. On the other hand, most atheists in this thread seem to be unable to imagine any different possibility. Thankfully not all though.

Arguments, like ideas, stand or fall on their own merit, and the messenger should not matter.

I don't think the messenger should not matter, but i agree at least that his/her ideas, concepts, or proposals of whatever kind shouldn't be dismissed based on that alone.

 

[Badran]

Carlin is supposed to be disrespectful. He's a comedian who frequently used profane shock value in his act.

Doesn't change the fact that he is disrespectful, and that he challenges religion very strongly, yet i like him. Also he was pretty much the same, or almost the same way in interviews, where he talked seriously, even if trying of course to still have some of his persona or character.

What you mentioned is actually why amongst other things i accept Carlin as a man good at his job, as well as like him.

Also i do find Dawkins interesting to watch (not always though), i just dismissed him in the sense of someone who i would expect to learn much from (which is what i mainly should be getting out of him). Regarding religion that is, of course.

Also ,I believe Carlin actually stated he was not an athiest. Doesn't really matter but I'll try to check it out.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of that, but in any case, i always thought he was an atheist, and thats how i felt and feel about him. So, i think my argument still applies, and, like i said claiming that the positions of theists in general regarding Dawkins to be based on some emotional insecure feelings is not true.

I always loved Carlin, though he did get a bit crotchety and bitter towards the end, at least outwardly.

Yeah

I still loved him though.

 

[Badran]

ok i saw the video and honestly i didn't see him laughing in a disrespectful way.
consider his stance...he said that it is not a sign of rationality to be governed by faith based upon something other than evidence...when discussing miracles, i'm sure he was thinking of a few outlandish ones that i'm sure both you and i would smile at too..rainbows and seeing jesus in the clouds and so forth.

To be honest i don't think we can argue this point very effectively. I found his attitude and way of responding to be disrespectful, parts of those things have to do with his intentions like jarofthoughts mentioned, and like you validated by bringing up what he could have been thinking of.

We got different impressions from what he was saying, i think there's not much we can do about it to change each other's minds.

and when the interviewer wrapped it up, he said dawkins was one of the rare few who is fun to debate with...

now based on RF we know that those who are disrespectful are not fun to debate with...

Well there is too many ways to look at that. For example the interviewer may be a disrespectful person too (according to my criteria of applying the term), who generally wouldn't mind the way Dawkins was talking.

 

[Falvlun]

Almost as bad as discriminating against scientists and educators honest and courageous enough to admit they believe in creation rather than evolution, and who try to publish their reasons. (See movie Expelled for examples).

You seriously don't see a difference between "You are an atheist, therefore you are not welcome to speak at our country club", and "Your beliefs, while you are welcome to hold them, are not scientifically sound"?

You can believe creation, but that doesn't mean that you have the right to publish bad science or teach religion in a science class.

 

[Badran]

To what end...? None of these people here are the subject.

You agreed to a post saying that the reason theists don't like/dismiss Dawkins is because of his arguments messing with their sensibilities, or hurting their feelings etc... and added that "their disdain for the man is fueled by their dogmatic emotional convictions".

Obviously if that was the case, i would feel the same way about others who offer arguments that would supposedly result in the same feelings.

 

[Majikthise]

Doesn't change the fact that he is disrespectful, and that he challenges religion very strongly, yet i like him. Also he was pretty much the same, or almost the same way in interviews, where he talked seriously, even if trying of course to still have some of his persona or character.

What you mentioned is actually why amongst other things i accept Carlin as a man good at his job, as well as like him.

Also i do find Dawkins interesting to watch (not always though), i just dismissed him in the sense of someone who i would expect to learn much from (which is what i mainly should be getting out of him). Regarding religion that is, of course.



I'm not sure about the accuracy of that, but in any case, i always thought he was an atheist, and thats how i felt and feel about him. So, i think my argument still applies, and, like i said claiming that the positions of theists in general regarding Dawkins to be based on some emotional insecure feelings is not true.



Yeah

I still loved him though.

Fair enough.
But.
Wouldn't you agree that we have a different mindset or mood when we anticipate what a comedian is going to say versus a philosopher or debator?
Can you see how they don't compare?

BTW, I checked on Carlin's mode of belief and he never stated either way definitively. But most do believe he was probably an atheist.

And Happy belated birthday. I was trying to think of something clever to put in your b day thread last night but was falling asleep at the computer and had to go to bed.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You agreed to a post saying that the reason theists don't like/dismiss Dawkins is because of his arguments messing with their sensibilities, or hurting their feelings etc... and added that "their disdain for the man is fueled by their dogmatic emotional convictions".

Obviously if that was the case, i would feel the same way about others who offer arguments that would supposedly result in the same feelings.

Surely you don't pretend to speak for all theist and for the record how Dawkins speaks or even the sum of his views of religion and the religious is not the same with all atheist even those here at RF.

 

[Badran]

Fair enough.
But.
Wouldn't you agree that we have a different mindset or mood when we anticipate what a comedian is going to say versus a philosopher or debator?
Can you see how they don't compare?

I see your point, and it does indeed make a difference, but there's a couple of things that make me think both cases are comparable:

1) Although a comedian, what he says has actually a strong impact on many people, because a lot of the things he used to say were both funny and actually intelligent. Also because such approach to the topic does have an incredible effect on many people, some took great offense, and i assume others felt he's right and religion did seem more 'silly' to them because of the things he said.

2) First time i saw him i wasn't actually aware that he is a comedian, and i took him pretty seriously.

BTW, I checked on Carlin's mode of belief and he never stated either way definitively. But most do believe he was probably an atheist.

Thanks, i wasn't aware of that.

And Happy belated birthday. I was trying to think of something clever to put in your b day thread last night but was falling asleep at the computer and had to go to bed.

Thank you, and i appreciate that you cared enough to try to post something in the first place.

 

[Badran]

Surely you don't pretend to speak for all theist

Perhaps you'd like to recheck both our posts and see who is pretending to speak for all theists and who's arguing against that generalization.

and for the record how Dawkins speaks or even the sum of his views of religion and the religious is not the same with all atheist even those here at RF.

Of course not all atheists think and/or express themselves alike. If they all did, and all were like Dawkins in their views and how they explain them, i would've obviously thought of them all the same way i think of Dawkins.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Perhaps you'd like to recheck both our posts and see who is pretending to speak for all theists and who's arguing against that generalization.

Done...

I'm only talking about the ones who are obviously (dogmatically critical) of his public speeches or debates. That's what I was addressing to Quintessence. I posted Dawkins reading his "hate" mail as well. All emotionally charged an invoking their deity in the hate mail as well.

Dawkins is not just an atheist, he's the worst sort of atheist

This is emotionally charged. He being a theist...I get it....

A venomously anti-religious, militant atheist

This is emotionally charged.

who makes a number of really ignorant statements about religion by painting it with far too broad of a brush.

I suspect this is emotionally charged as well. I guess we'll have to wait for him to qualify this statement......

 

[work in progress]

What do you mean "that would make it species level natural selection"? Humans are the agent of transmittance for our genes as well, but that doesn't prove species level selection.

Also, why are you insisting on a literal one-to-one correlation between genes and memes? That was never the point of the meme concept. It is simply an analogy. It's not meant to be a perfect comparison, and particularly not in the mechanism of heredity!

As I said previously, I am not trying to disprove the meme as an analogy for how ideas and concepts are propagated. It may fit to some degree, although I am not so sure it works for explaining how complex intricate belief systems are propagated. They seem to be handed down from one generation to the next as a complete package.....I don't know, my beef goes back to that Viruses Of The Mind piece that tries to everything about religion as a collection of harmful viral memes that invade, and overrule the thinking of the host, and are removed like a viral disease.

Find me a quote where Dawkins states that we are only the result of nurture and that nature has nothing to do with it.

Dawkins is not exactly consistent on the subject, since he mentions the phenomena of essentialism as one of the reasons why people have a hard time accepting the theory of evolution, but believes belief in God is a delusion that can be unlearned by everyone who believes it.

I already responded to all that. I read the article. Why does it have to be superstition that causes us to recoil from murderer's cardigans, and not just the natural revulsion towards heinous crimes?

A scientist studying human behaviour is going to ask why should there be a natural revulsion to an item that an audience is told belonged to a killer? The sweater is not guilty of the crime, and had no role in the murders, and yet it becomes associated with the person at a very deep, fundamental level, like it has been polluted with the spirit of the owner. Think of all of the ritual purity laws and this sort of thinking seems to be the foundation.

BTW the demonstration also began first with an old fountain pen being handed out to be examined by the audience after being told it had belonged to Albert Einstein. People crowded around, waiting for a chance to hold it, and many looked on reverently like it was a holy object....and again, although it was at an open public discussion, most of the audience was university students, who we would expect to be the most rational, least religious segment of society.

Also, as far as I know, most people don't buy celebrity owned apparel because they believe it imparts some magical skill. It is special simply because the celebrity owned it; to a fan, that is meaningful enough.

Maybe not consciously; but there is no simple, rational reason for the memorabilia market. Why would someone pay a large sum of money for Michael Jackson's white glove or a bat that was used by Hank Aaron to hit a career-record home run?

Regardless, none of this contradicts the fact that the vast majority of concepts are transmitted culturally by people communicating with each other, ie, memes. People may very well have a predisposition towards believing religion. I believe they do. No argument there. But that doesn't indicate that believing in religion is good.

I still think religion is too complex and people are likewise too variable in their desires and needs to make a yes or no judgment like that. Some religions may be good for some people and not for others. And some people are not going to be satisfied with a naturalist worldview even if it seems the most likely. I suspect that these are the segment of the population that end up as the Francis Collins or Ken Millers, who find some reason to join a religion after spending some time as atheists.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Except that Marx and Dawkins will not agree with you there about that spirit that you are talking about.

I happenned to be a Marxist for very long time and still hold its ideals close to heart. But the very reason, I think, that Marxist theory is not complete, is nearly the reason (in my opinion) why Dawkin's et al are flawed. YMMV.

I'm not sure I understand you ..... but whatever the intentions of a "philosopher" (such as Marx or Dawkins), should the student who is interested in the truth pay any attention at all to the reverence of an argument or a fact? The physicists Wolfgang Pauli and Richard Feynman, for example, and many others, were notoriously derisive and contemptuous towards ideas they considered "wrong". Who cares? Pauli and Feynman were either correct, or incorrect. Their rudeness is a worthy topic but it certainly has nothing to do with their correctness.

Religion really does have a way of hijacking critical thinking so that style/form/pleasantries outweigh truth/evidence/facts.

 

[Falvlun]

They seem to be handed down from one generation to the next as a complete package.....I don't know, my beef goes back to that Viruses Of The Mind piece that tries to everything about religion as a collection of harmful viral memes that invade, and overrule the thinking of the host, and are removed like a viral disease.

There is actually a word for a "complete package" of memes: memeplex. This refers to exactly what you're talking about: a whole system of beliefs, that are transmitted as essentially one package. This would include things like religion, political ideologies, or cultural practices.

Also, I was surprised to discover that Dawkins isn't the first, or only, to describe memes as viruses. Malcolm Gladwell wrote, "A meme is an idea that behaves like a virus--that moves through a population, taking hold in each person it infects." And they have also been called "thought contagions".

So, while Dawkins took it a step further to apply it specifically to religion (and, likely, to emphasize the worst aspects), memes have historically been considered viruses.

 

[Badran]

Done...

I'm only talking about the ones who are obviously (dogmatically critical) of his public speeches or debates. That's what I was addressing to Quintessence. I posted Dawkins reading his "hate" mail as well. All emotionally charged an invoking their deity in the hate mail as well.

There has been a major misunderstanding then. Although you did fail to actually say that you recognize other possibilities as to why some people don't like him, or are hurt by what he has to say. You also agreed to a post that was speaking in general, so, if i misunderstood, it was more than justified.

This is emotionally charged. He being a theist...I get it....

This is emotionally charged.

I suspect this is emotionally charged as well. I guess we'll have to wait for him to qualify this statement......

Like i said before, just because he didn't share examples or evidence that would supposedly explain his position doesn't make your assumption or claim valid.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

What were they expecting him to speak about, I wonder?

Yeah, this hit me as well: did they know why they were hiring him to speak?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There has been a major misunderstanding then. Although you did fail to actually say that you recognize other possibilities as to why some people don't like him, or are hurt by what he has to say.

I didn't fail at anything. I was quite clear as to what I said and meant.

Like i said before, just because he didn't share examples or evidence that would supposedly explain his position doesn't make your assumption or claim valid.

Nor does it invalidate my claim....

 

[work in progress]

There is actually a word for a "complete package" of memes: memeplex. This refers to exactly what you're talking about: a whole system of beliefs, that are transmitted as essentially one package. This would include things like religion, political ideologies, or cultural practices.

Is there something equivalent to code-script that exists in transcribing genes? I'm not sure how useful the meme analogy is, but some of the stuff I've read which connects religion and culture with memes, appears to be after-the-fact, or offers no way to show the evolution of cultural ideas as they are passed along.

Also, I was surprised to discover that Dawkins isn't the first, or only, to describe memes as viruses. Malcolm Gladwell wrote, "A meme is an idea that behaves like a virus--that moves through a population, taking hold in each person it infects." And they have also been called "thought contagions".

Ouch! If I get interested in Meme Theory, it's not going to be on the advice of Malcolm Gladwell. I was given a copy of his book "Blink" by someone who really became a fan of his -- but I was a little taken aback when he starts talking about training the unconscious, or our intuitive sense to make better decisions. I've noticed that a number of neuroscientists and other brain researchers have started taking on his claims about the unconscious, and seem to put him in the same box with Deepak Chopra and other pseudo-intellectuals, who take a little knowledge of a field and run to the wrong conclusions with it. Robert Burton - the author of "On Being Certain" landed on him with an elbow-drop for his self-help advice, and the psychologists who I've read that are exploring intuitive thinking systems, do not consider it something to be trained and used instead of reasoning. They seem to generally view the intuitive as the fundamental basic system that forms most of our choices subconsciously, since reasoning is too time-consuming to employ with every possible decision.

So, while Dawkins took it a step further to apply it specifically to religion (and, likely, to emphasize the worst aspects), memes have historically been considered viruses.

My main objection to some of the stuff he wrote (Viruses of the Mind) is that the viral analogy is taken all the way -- explaining the entire aspect of religious belief systems as accumulations of viral memes into some organized memoplex I suppose. And then the subject (Anthony Kenny) is cured of his mind-controlling viral infection through the antidote of the introduction of correct scientific memes. There is no room made for how intuitive expectations may be involved in accepting more elaborate religious beliefs, or even that different people may have different needs, and are not going to live happily ever after when they are given the scientific "cure."

 

[Majikthise]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=related

Militant comedian?

For you Badran

 

[Badran]

I didn't fail at anything. I was quite clear as to what I said and meant.

I kept asking whether or not you think its possible for words to warrant offense, you didn't really give me a clear answer. If you did, i apologize for missing it.

Nor does it invalidate my claim....

I never said it did....

What i was addressing however, was that those claims were unqualified. So, your confidence regarding this supposedly being the case is what i was wondering about.

 

[Badran]

[youtube]MeSSwKffj9o[/youtube]
George Carlin - Religion is bull****. - YouTube

Militant comedian?

For you Badran

Thanks