Boils the Blood

[Squidflakes]

I try not to post too much political or religious stuff here, but I saw this and it just boiled my blood.

Part of Richard Dawkins series where he confronts fundies about their religion.

The guy he's talking to is one of the most culturally dangerous men in America, and is activly trying to turn the place in to a theocracy.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/0 ... tml#002764

[Ghastly]

Well that sucks. I can't watch it because it requires Quicktime 7 which won't run on Windows 98se.

[Squidflakes]

well crap.

[Swordsman3003]

Dawkins, one of the great masters of atheism. I love this guy, but he can be a little to adamant. He even gets after scientists who believe in God.

[Gengar003]

Well that sucks. I can't watch it because

I don't want to install I-tunes, and can't seem to find the player seperately.

[Indigo Violent]

Did that guy scare the crap out of anyone else, just by the way he talked and the unchanging grimace on his face? "We are the ChristBorg. Resistance is futile."

[Gible]

I don't want to install I-tunes, and can't seem to find the player seperately.

I vaguely remember it giving me the option of not installing I-tunes when I installed it....of course you still have to download the whole package.

[ManaUser]

Yeah that guy is creepy (and ugly too). But after listening to the longer audio program I can't say I like the fundie atheist guy too much either.

[Swordsman3003]

Thus I must ask the question: Is there anyone here who actually believes in God?

[Honor]

Dude's done the minute he starts talking about the eye or the ear just spontaneously forming themselves.

The full audio is still downloading, but I'm pretty sure I can predict his "unlikeable" tone. And understand it, without excusing it. It's pretty damned frustrating to try to talk reason with someone who's so ignorant and unreasonable as to argue against evolution without understanding it.

[Swordsman3003]

The whole audio isn't about that guy, it's about Dawkins survey of irrational religious beliefs.

[Honor]

Well, I'm half way through and I can say , so far I anti-dislike him. Very much.

[Toawa]

Watched the video... Wow. (Especially about the facial expression.)

I'd say he's a tossup between MAD TV parody actor or cult leader.

[Gengar003]

For the sake of <strike>attention</strike> argument...

(seriously though)

It's pretty damned frustrating to try to talk reason with someone who's so ignorant and unreasonable as to argue against evolution without understanding it.

Scientology doesn't (or shouldn't) make sense or sound reasonable at first glance, or as you hear it described by someone else. Given that, why would you want to take a class about it, or listen to someone lecture you about it. It's crap, right? Thetans, Xenu.. pssh. Yeah right.

That's how (I believe) most of the "fundies" feel about evolution. Their whole lives (born-agains excluded) they've been <strike>brainwashed</strike> taught about God, about the Bible, and how THAT'S how it is. Anything else... pssh. Yeah right.

Had you been raised all your life with the belief that something mutually exclusive to evolution was the absolute truth, you, too, would scoff at it. Note that being raised with the belief is different than being raised by people of the belief, or being raised around people who tried to convince you of the belief. Had you been raised in atmosphere of blind faith, with no alternatives presented, without the questioning mindset science dictates, had you been raised so that you accepted rather than questioned, you, too, would scoff. And people would be at a loss as to why.

No, the majority of the fundies aren't illogical fools to us because they choose to be; rather we percieve them as such because their worldview does not make SENSE to those of us who follow logic and science. Society has failed at teaching these people what we call "logic," "reason," or "common sense." Not necessarily society as a whole, but the society they grew up in. At least, it failed to us. Maybe to them and to their society they're a shining success. But their "knowledge," their beliefs won't help them in the real world. They need to learn logic and science. However, their current worldview won't let them. You can't install windows on a mac because... it's a mac. It doesn't run windows. You'd have to rebuild the thing from scratch before it would run it, and then only mabye. It'd be much eaiser just to use a different machine, and forget trying to get your apple to run windows.

They weren't taught to be able to understand. They need to be re-taught how to learn, how to process information, before we can show them scientific concepts based on logic and reason and expect them to understand. Only then, if they STILL refuse, can we justifiably mock them.

Mind you, we can still mock them all we want right now, but it's like mocking macs because they don't run windows. Who looks at a mac and says "pshh. That's a crappy machine, because it doesn't even run windows?" Certainly no one who subscribes to logic, reason, and science. That's not the point of a mac.

I'm not sure what I wanted to say with this, actually.... but I said it anyway. Gotta love the internet. Got some related pictures I'll post later.

[Gible]

Thus I must ask the question: Is there anyone here who actually believes in God?

Actually, yes.

[LeftTentacleGreen]

Bleah. What a moron. It almost made me laugh at all the rhetoric he was spewing from his shit-hole.

"you are accepting some of the views accpeted by some of the scientific community"

Yeah, if you just happen to believe in theories that actually HAVE reproducible empirical evidence to support it and define "some of the scientific community" as only being a mere 95%

"in fact, your grandchildren might hear this tape and laugh at you."

I love how moron devout theists pump out the word FACT all the time. From talking with these idiots and visiting their websites you can infer how these morons arrive at this juncture of retarded logic:

• 1. I believe in God
  2. I believe God is Fact
  3. Therefore, belief = Fact

or

• 1. Scientists can only believe in their theories.
  2. Scientists believe theories are fact.
  3. Therefore, belief = Fact

So translating the above statement, the whackjob is saying "I believe your children will laugh at you and therefore it is fact that it might happen"

"sometimes its hard for a human being to study the ear or study the eye and think it happened by accident"

This is what is known as Behe's Syndrome. Behe was an otherwise brilliant, but hopelessly self-absorbed individual who saw something in a petri dish he couldn't explain and since he believed nothing was beyond his grasp, he slapped his hand against his forehead and declared "God must have done it." This is the only basis for Intelligent Design. No real evidence. No tests that could actually produce anything that could support it. Just "I can't understand it, therefore God."

This arguement can be brushed away merely by telling the devout theist that "the notion of God is not a valid default for a lack of scientific understanding." No matter what science can not easily explain today, or within your lifetime, "The notion of God is STILL not a valid default for a lack of scientific understanding."

"This issue of intellectual arrogance is the reason why people like you have a problem with people of faith"

This is a two-fer. First the "issue of intellectual arrogance".

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The issue is that people of religious faith think that somehow they are welcome to the same amount of scientific respect without ever having to come up with a single shred of actual empirical evidence to support their notions. Say it with me one more time, "the notion of God is not a valid default for a lack of scientific understanding." Since the scientific community is holding theology's feet to the fire on this subject, it comes across as intellectual arrogance in the same way a child may think an adult as arrogant, but in reality its intellectual responsibility.

And now the issue of faith.

Devout theists love to mix up the term faith (not to mention try to use it as a substitute for empirical evidence), but in fact, there are TWO distinct kinds of faith. There is interpersonal faith in which people place trust in other people based on their own real experiences. Then there is religious faith which is trust placed in a supreme boogeyman based on experiences they read about in storybooks. Devout theists love to group faith together in one muddled pile and stake their claim in it as if it was something that was wholly their own idea (Theist Lie: You can't have faith without religion).

"I don't hold an air of superiority.. but if you only... then you would be great like me"

Could someone please remind me how people like this are ever taken seriously? Is the general populace really that stupid?

Sadly, yes.

"As you age, you'll find yourself wrong on some things"

This is a half-baked notion devout clowns use based on people's fear of their own mortality and statistics. As people realize they are getting older, they tend to realize that they aren't going to be around forever. It hit me like a ton of bricks the minute I turned 30. I realized that I was not a young man anymore and that life would be so much simpler if by some chance there was some sembleance of conscious existence beyond death. Obviously if death has no eternal grip on us, then its something we don't have to fear. But as George Carlin put it "Fear of death is universal. No one wants to get old. No one wants to die. But we do. So, we bullshit ourselves." If we are in possession of self-worth, then we value our own existence and the notion that we exist beyond death is a very comforting thing.

There's another theist saying that runs along this line: There are no atheists in foxholes. Well, when something we value is in jeopardy, humans tend to turn to totems or notions or superstitious activities in the hopes that we can manipulate the world around us and control that which we can not control. Soldiers tend not to be an exception to this when bullets are whizzing past their head. In reality, however, its the exact same phenomena with sports stars that eat chicken before every game, or touch bases coming in from the outfield, or hum their favorite songs before going out onto the court. Players value their performance and when coming across other players that are either younger or might out-perform them, they fear they may lose their own performance.. so they turn to superstition.

Personally, I feel if the universe wants me to survive death, then I will.

"Please, in the process of it. Don't be arrogant."

Translation: Please, don't make me have to show evidence to support my beliefs. I can't do it and I don't want to do it.

Bottom line folks. Devout theists want to have their religious notions taken as seriously as any scientific theory without having to come up with a shred of scientific evidence to support it. While a person may have the right to have their own belief. No one has the right to either automatic validation or automatic respect just for having their beliefs.

[Gengar003]

*ka-pwn*

I am going to take your "The notion of God is not a valid default for lack of scientific understanding." mantra and... like... I dunno. ADOPT IT! That's it.

... there's an ad for the Bush/Kerry deformation game at the top of this page... couple years late there...

[Swordsman3003]

I've seen that bastard on a TV show about megachurches. He smiles like he wants to eat my babies.

HE is the arrogant asshole. Not only is he patronizing, I can read his body language. He is angry, and does not enjoy that fact that his simple anecdotes to 'disprove' evolution will not work on the staunchest atheist of our time. If he were not afraid of the consequences for his actions, he would not be acting to civil. His simple statements like 'some scientist don't think the eye created itself' are complete bullshit, but to his followers, he sounds like an intellectual.

anyhoo

The thing you must all consider is the notion that religious people consider belief without proof a positive quality. The less proof there is, and the more you believe it, the more respectable you are! Not to mention, if we question them about their ideas and the 'fight the devil', they are lauded!! It is a cycle that continues all the time, religion is an idea that cannot be defeated intellectually it seems.

Another thing to consider is, he attacks Dawkins for having credentials in the scientific field. Can the preacher claim to be an "expert" in theology? There is not more of an expert in theology than there is an expert on the loch ness monster!

[Sweet or Sour]

Though I'm not going to discuss my own beliefs, if for no reason other than to avoid having to remove the mound of gravel that will be dumped on me regardless of which side i choose, if this topic goes the same route as regular discussions have that concerned this topic, there is something of a dangerous set of ideas that are being discussed. I'll just post the edited down version so you all don't have to sit though my rambling.

There has been much in science that has been found to be very counter intuitive, and just because something isn't seen now, doesn't mean it won't be later. There is certainly more out there than we will likely ever know, but that doesn't mean we should ignore that evidence that is provided to us, in favor of that which it disproves.

Another one of the major dangers, at least in my mind, isn't believing in given topic A or C, but finding someone with a book that contains A B and C, and then taking B as true regardless of thought or previous stance. This one of the major problems with highly ordered religions, like those being discussed here. Believing in God is not so bad, assuming God is what someone else says God is, simply because that person also believes in God, is a very active approach toward ignorance.

Really should start posting in the more light-hearted threads.....

[Toawa]

Another one of the major dangers, at least in my mind, isn't believing in given topic A or C, but finding someone with a book that contains A B and C, and then taking B as true regardless of thought or previous stance. This one of the major problems with highly ordered religions, like those being discussed here. Believing in God is not so bad, assuming God is what someone else says God is, simply because that person also believes in God, is a very active approach toward ignorance.

That's essentially why I've stabilized on agnosticism. I can't prove there is/are (a) god(s), but I can't prove there isn't/aren't. Thus, pending further developments, I must leave it as an unknown random variable X. However, to base any particular stance on this random variable X is, to one way of looking at it, foolish, if for no other reason then that you don't know what stance is preferred by X.

Point: This book was written by X.
Counterpoint: Was it really written by X, or did someone else claim to be X?
Point: It must be from X, because X would stop people from making false copies.
Counterpoint: Does X have that ability, or was it added by someone else to shore up claims about the validity of the book?
ad infinitim

(This gets particularly fun when the book in question is, in fact, translated out of its native language.)

Until such time as (a) god(s) make him/her/themselves known directly, or are discovered directly, to assume any particular stance on an issue has the backing of X is fallacious, because one cannot confirm that the stance came from this being and not from someone claiming to be them/to have heard from them. Even if we did, at one time, recieve such stances, given the nature of time and translation, there are now several copies of the stances, each claiming to be the genuine line of translations, which say completely opposite things.

(It is important to remember that just because an argument's assumptions or logical operations are fallacious, does not mean the argument's conclusion is necessarily false. That assumption is itself fallacious. In order to prove a conclusion false, one must provide a valid logical argument that it is false, not simply invalidate all arguments that it is true. Unfortunately, most politicians forget that little tidbit.)

(This is all based on the assumption that we do not live in a belief moderated universe, ala Discworld, where belief alone is sufficient to change or overpower the laws of nature (whatever those are). If we do live in a belief moderated universe, and we can't prove that we don't, then things get very interesting.)

Ultimately, though, the question science is left out completely, because the whole point of science is the study of that which can, to the best of our knowledge, perception, and understanding of logic, can be proved, not that which can't be proved. Someday, at some point of our development, perhaps we will be able to prove or disproved the existence of god(s). I won't speculate on what the answer will be, except to go so far as to say, I doubt it will happen in my (natural) lifetime.