Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[ethios4]

dualism is old pie. nobody takes it serious anymore, can anyone summarize the arguments against the cartesian dualism?

I nvere said or meant Cartesian dualism. I was thinking of the fact of living in a dualistic universe. You know - correct/incorrect, forward/backward, theist/atheist....pretty hard to refute that. The closest mataphor I can conjure is the nature of light....wave/particle, uncertainty priniciple, all that.....in a metaphorical sense, science collapse the paradox of the dual nature of light into one or the other through the act of measurement/rationalization.....the mystery is the state before the collapse.

[mdk]

But for a monkey to turn into a man.......NEVER proven, not even by Darwin.

i think you've got some reading to do

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm

'Fossils from several different early australopith species that lived between 4 million and 2 million years ago show a variety of adaptations that mark the transition from ape to human'

[Machinesworking]

The fact remains that you're out of your league my friend. In our last exchange, it was clear that you knew very little about Judaism but decided to debate me nonetheless. 1st rule of debating...educate yourself about the topic you're discussing. I believe the term you used was "hassidic laws"

Let's talk about that, the topic of our last discussion was again atheism. YOU are the one centered on judaism. What I do know, and what is entirely, and easily ascertained from even the slightest bit of information is that like every other religion out there, there is a fundamentalist movement in judaism that preaches an extremist view point.
AFA Hassidics etc. all I know is that there is a fundamentalist element to that movement, I know it's relatively speaking a recent movement, and I used the term inappropriately. I should have said fundamentalist, or extremist. Sure we can argue for days about that sort of thing, but what's the point? Why would I want to? and that thread was primarily about a movement in Germany to stop extremist anti semites from propagating their idiotic text trying to lesson the blame that nazis have for killing millions of jews. I found it rather distasteful to argue with you after a while in that thread simply because it had ZERO to do with the original subject.
You not a zealot? Give me a break!

zealot |?zel?t| noun a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. • ( Zealot) historical a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until ad 70. DERIVATIVES zealotry |-?tr?| noun ORIGIN mid 16th cent.(in the sense [member of an ancient Jewish sect] ): via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek z?l?t?s, from z?loun ‘be jealous,’ from z?los (see zeal ).
THE RIGHT WORD
An enthusiast displays an intense and eager interest in something (: a sky-diving enthusiast).
A fanatic is not only intense and eager but possibly irrational in his or her enthusiasm; fanatic suggests extreme devotion and a willingness to go to any length to maintain or carry out one's beliefs (: a fly-fishing fanatic who hired a helicopter to reach his favorite stream).
A zealot exhibits not only extreme devotion but vehement activity in support of a cause or goal (: a feminist zealot who spent most of her time campaigning for women's rights).
An extremist is a supporter of extreme doctrines or practices, particularly in a political context (: a paramilitary extremist who anticipated the overthrow of the government).
But it is the bigot who causes the most trouble, exhibiting obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions. In contrast to fanatic and zealot, the term bigot implies intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree (: a bigot who could not accept his daughter's decision to marry outside her religion).

Hey look I didn't call you a bigot, though I think your contempt for atheists, and lack of ability to even admit that the actions of people are governed by something other than their religious views is bigoted. That last one kills me, I have yet to see any evidence of any religion free from deceit, greed, and other forms of ego tripping. It's always a matter of the individual, I know christian, jewish, and atheist people who are morally and ethically just really good people, in every way, and conversely I know people of any religious persuasion who are totally bankrupt ethically. The simple fact is you tried to argue that to be false.

You fit the dictionary definition of a zealot perfectly. Argue all you want about any subject, but when you argue that your particular clan is morally superior, well your full of yourself, and I don't really need to debate you for anybody with half a sense of rational thinking to see that.
Let's go back to your original statement here in this thread.

OK this took out of context is poorly worded, what I was trying to say is one's take on religion, whether atheist or muslim, jewish, or whatever, has little bearing on their moral and ethical behavior in the real world.

Go spend time with religious Jews...anywhere. You'll retract your statement...quickly.*


* I can't speak for non-Jews, but I'm assuming a legislated lifestyle of volunteering, family cohesion, prayer, etc., leads to ethical behavior. And dare I say, more than secular folks.

Like I said, I see no difference in ethical behavior in religious people over secular. Notice that my statement puts no emphasis on my own secular nature as being ethically superior!

You are a zealot. Honestly the word isn't that much of an insult, and I have no idea why you think it's out of context with your views, when everything you say about religion, and your particular version points out your own zealotry.

[Simon Waters]

Galatians 4:18 (edited)

"It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always."

And...

Romans 12:11

"Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord"

Going to bible study tonight so if I learn anything new I may just post it.

[mdk]

cool..

i always wondered how you could tell which bits you take literally and which bits metaphorically.

[telekom]

I've got a Korg Prophecy, and I used to subscribe to an email list about the Prophecy. A guy kept appearing saying "Please stop sending me all these messages about synthesizers, I'm not interested. I joined this list because I thought it was about Christianity. Can you stop sending the messages? How do I disable this? And please will you all stop making anti-Christian comments. How do I stop getting these messages? Will somebody please help me?"

That's a bummer.

I've still got the Prophecy though. The end of the world is nigh. Enjoy.

[shtreimel]

Machinesworking...your machine's not working. I can't believe you'd print my exact words, the very same words that have nothing...nadda...zip...zero...to do with zealotry.

Anyway, your John Lennon'esque - wer're all the same, so let's hug and spread VD to each other - might win you bonus points with chicks at your local college campus, but that's where it ends. When you're sanctioned to do good things, you do good things. Not always, not everyday, but more than if you're not sanctioned to. I have a healthy dose of secular and religous friends. My secular friends, IN GENERAL, are more self-absorbed, alienated from any type of community, volunteer less, and prone to get themselves involved with unhealthy lifestyle habits. And since I'm more "secular" than "religious", I've noticed this phenomenon time and time again. Atheism sounds good on paper, but it makes for lousy communities.

[hoffman2k]

The first chapter of any biology book and the first thing out of a true scientists mouth will be "something can NOT come out of nothing". based on that how could life just spawn out of nothing. Science contridicts anything an atheist can drum/twist. Big Bang could not have happen. Explosions don't generate complex life like humans. Darwin himself could not prove and he admitted it, that one species evolved into another. He did successfully prove, and no religion will argue, that species did adapt to their environment. But for a monkey to turn into a man.......NEVER proven, not even by Darwin.

I guess your school had very very old books

We actually come from fish which evolved into monkey's who then later evolved into tax consultants.

Sounds a lot more plausible then "Snap, God did it"

I see the universe in a very simplified way.

First there was nothing...
Nothing grew into a collection of things that are NOT there.
Voila, here we are. (or not?)

Something that does not exist, will eventually be there.
Even if it is in the mind of any random person.

[mdk]

Show me the evidence for specifically Macro-evolution. Trait shifting in a single species does happen, and its reasons are obvious, but I did not come from a dog, or a fish, it is simply genetically impossible.

There is a large body of evidence for what is commonly regarded as 'macro-evolution'. You could try google

I spent yesterday afternoon rock-climbing with my friend Hamish, who is getting his PhD in Biology. He has more than once flatly shared that there is no consistent thread of evidence to support macro-evolution, but that it remains today a theory.

What do you mean by 'consistent thread of evidence' ?

You mean there is evidence which discredits evolution? (at either level)

or that the evidence is incomplete?

Evolution itself is a fact, what is theory is how evolution works. But this is in the scientific sense of theory. Not in the sense of an 'imperfect fact'

I guess you've gone from the discussion now like you said, but for anyone else interested here's a start

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Machinate]

Something that does not exist, will eventually be there.
Even if it is in the mind of any random person.

While not impossible, it's definitely HIGHLY unlikely. Use your Bistro-matic, my brother, anc calculate just HOW unlikely, and you can travel throughout space.

[hoffman2k]

Something that does not exist, will eventually be there.
Even if it is in the mind of any random person.

While not impossible, it's definitely HIGHLY unlikely. Use your Bistro-matic, my brother, anc calculate just HOW unlikely, and you can travel throughout space.

*Contemplates the menu*

[Fizmarble]

This whole topic is crazy to me. If I am so "evolved", why do I have to kill animals and use their natural skin to keep warm? Why did I evolve from having my own natural protection, to needing to kill to acquire protection? So many of you put your trust in Dawkins because he has an education that by it's nature teaches that everything came to being through accident, though that same institution fails to be able to create life in even the most perfect lab conditions. It comes down to trust. I trust an invisible God, because I see the works of his hands. (anthropomorphism)

A lot of you trust a guy. I trust a God. Now, we all have to sit and wait to see whose investment pays off.

[Seyser Koze]

I believe it was bertrand russell who said that we must "respect a mans religious beliefs but only in so far as we must respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart"

however, I disagree with him.

i think all religion and religious people should be held up to ridicule. it is only by this combined action and a gathering of atheist minds to influence government and decision making on a global scale that religion will be stripped of it's power and put back where it belongs. A minor harmless area of society for the mad and brainwashed.

A quick note to all the other atheists here, don't waste your breath arguing with the religious. They cannot ( for obvious reason) ever come from a position of rationality on any topic due to their misplaced belief system.

best to avoid being drawn into a discussion with them. Best in fact to avoid them like the plague (That's a naturally ocurring plague not some ,mystical magical god trick to punish your for your sins)

What really annoys me about religion is the advantage they gain in society and government by simply saying they believe in god. (Yeah? prove it!) You want tax free charity money? Sure, prove your case first!

more than anything the fact that they still force feed children in schools to listen to their rambling nonsense sickens me, it sickens me that a society as advanced as ours would put children through that brainwashing. That is not education, it is organised cultism.

They spend public money on providing chaplaincy services in hospitals an the armed forces. money that could be better spent on problems that really matter to society.

Religion, in all it's forms, is a sore festering wound on the skin of society and it's beginning to smell bad.

At least I can satsify myself by getting out and actually enjoying the real world while they all waste their time singing and clapping and silently offering up prayer to their mystical sky gods.

Idiots.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it good men do good things and evil men do evil things. But, for good men to do evil things takes religion"

[mdk]

A quick note to all the other atheists here, don't waste your breath arguing with the religious. They cannot ( for obvious reason) ever come from a position of rationality on any topic due to their misplaced belief system.

For a long time I tended to agree with you, but there is a good side to entering into such discussion, in that it is a great motivator for me to learn more, particularly about evolution.

Its also good training in how to be rational and rigorous. Some people think that their verbal claims are enough to settle an argument, or relying on old science is enough to get by, although I suppose if you are used to relying on a collection of stories written 2000 to 1500 years ago to guide you in life then using 150 year old science to make a claim is probably as exciting as when my parents first saw colour tv.

anyway, I've read and learnt a lot over the past week or so, and id like to thank the religious people for their efforts in helping me to learn more about the real world.

The sheer range of evidence for macro-evolution is stunning and shows what a marvellous diversity of existence has evolved over the billions of years.

Nature rules.

[Machinesworking]

the very same words that have nothing...nadda...zip...zero...to do with zealotry.


When you're sanctioned to do good things, you do good things. Not always, not everyday, but more than if you're not sanctioned to.

Right, you believe human nature to be inclined towards not doing good things. I do not. People I know who are atheist, tend to be highly moralistic, now people who simply say they don't believe in god etc. but haven't really thought about it.... well IMO some of them are angry children of religious parents who will do anything to be different than their relatives.
Not all of us had religion crammed down out throat, and therefore don't suffer from a knee jerk reaction to the religious minded.

I have a healthy dose of secular and religous friends. My secular friends, IN GENERAL, are more self-absorbed, alienated from any type of community, volunteer less, and prone to get themselves involved with unhealthy lifestyle habits. And since I'm more "secular" than "religious", I've noticed this phenomenon time and time again. Atheism sounds good on paper, but it makes for lousy communities.

Right. I was going to address this. let's face it I know more atheists with a high ethical standard, it's who I am, so I surround myself with them. half the religious people I know are a product of work, and other community-at-large type interactions. For me to judge religious people based on my knowledge of that culture based on friends of mine with deeply religious parents and people I work with would be short sighted at best.
Let's just say that religious people in my experience are some of the worst people to do business with, cut throat and greedy beyond belief, but that's an entirely unfair value judgment to place on them, since it's only from my perspective in a very small subset of the human species.
What I do gather from the news points me towards believing that religious people in general suffer from all the same ailments as non religious. True enough that drug use would be up in the secular community, but I'd be willing to bet that prescription drugs are prescribed at an astoundingly higher rate to those of a religious faith.

Back to the zealot thing, you are fundamentally opposed to atheism, to the point to where you engaged in a discussion about your own opinion on the matter in a thread not even remotely related to atheism.
The simple definition, not the one used by politicians to taint their opponent in the same way Bush Sr. used 'liberal', but the dictionary definition, that fits you.

Zealota person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Sorry buddy, but you are going around and around with me, because I'm espousing a moderate view on the issue of religion, not some extremist anti jew, anti christian perspective, but a simple, easy to understand, and non critical view that religion, and atheism are not fundamental to the ethical nature of a person.
This took me years to come to realize, I used to be like you in the sense that I thought it mattered, I thought that atheists were of a stronger ethical character than the religious. Like your assumption that secular people are less ethical, I assumed that conversely religious people were more likely to be fanatics and deceitful since in my opinion their belief system was based on a fundamental lie, that they have any idea at all as to what happens to them when they die or the bigger picture of the workings of the universe. Now I realize that it has little to do with what people say their actions are going to be, rather it's simply a matter of if they are of high ethical standards.
My family, which is mostly secular, spent all of our christmas money that would normally go towards gifts to each other on a single mother who has been clean for 15 years, whose husband left her two years ago to go back to heroin, and who is trying to raise a 16 year old on the crappy jobs she can get with a felony. A good person who is still suffering from the mistakes she made 15 years ago. (her felony is growing a field of marijuana, probably the lamest excuse for a felony there is!) Once again, you are going off the people you know, who are not nearly of the quality I associate with. My friends who are religious are also of a higher nature than the religious types I do business with, that's what I'm interested in, you're human capacity for compassion, not your religion.