It's difficult to determine precisely what he means without talking to him. I sympathise with determinism to some degrees, since it seems to me that all actions or decisions are based off of factors that affect those things performing those actions and making those decisions. If it is determined that a situation forces a person to act in either one way or the other, free will could be argued to be the factor that decides which decision will be made. In truth though, is not the person's nature what ultimately leads to which way their will be direct them? And one's nature is typically determined by one's life experiences and previous choices. So is there really a choice? I do not know. One could have this in mind, and choose some third option, but it is likely that thew third option would not become apparent unless that person knew of this determinism idea.

It's an interesting notion, to be sure. Why is Dawkins pushing for it? The same reason anyone pushes for anything. He believes it to be true, and wishes other people to see it that way too. The ramifications of it being accepted are not really important. In his view it'd be the same as accepting some uncomfortable fact of reality, which cannot be changed but only recognised, or ignored.

(February 18, 2013 at 12:46 am)justin Wrote: You comprehened the content of what i was saying not because of the different experiances we had in typing it but because you recognize the bad grammar and basic spelling errors and make mental corrections as you go that are based off of high probability assumptions to fill in the insenseable gaps that are scattered through out my response. That of which i recgonize myself and accept the ridicule not as offensive but as an unbiased truth that may help me make corrections to the problem by pointing out the flaws so as to avoid future repetition of said ridicule.

Fine, then also accept that you are more of an idiot than some of the religious people on this forum.

(February 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm)justin Wrote: while evolution may give answers it doesn`t mean that you need evolution for atheism. atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. it isn`t dependant on anything other than the lack of the evidence for the propersition of the god being made. he wouldn`t be talking to bricks walls about atheism just because he didn`t relay his experiance of how he came to evolution or the explaination of evolution because they are not needed in order to ridicule the irrational beliefs of theism, thought they do help.

If it is possible to ridicule a theist without science, then it is also possible to believe in theism and science. Why isn't this rational?

(February 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm)justin Wrote: he holds them accountable because they have a choice in the matter to change their way of thinking. evolution does not have goals or does what is best for the species, the species must adapt of suffer. in this cause changing the way religion is held in order to adapt to a more pregressive time ultimatly.

Free will can be as much of an illusion as god. Adapting to believe in free will and god could give someone less suffering, so how is challenging them with atheism and determinism adapting more progressively?

(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote:

(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote: do you have no hope for humanity?

Quote:Hope is a synonym for faith my friend. I do not have faith that over 7 billion people will understand my experience of atheism, no. But please think about that next time you debate someone with faith.

Indeed, when one truly considers the vastness of the universe, the insignificance of humanity is overwhelming.

yes, but we have more reason to have hope for humanity than we do in stone age myths because of historical moments of changing for the better. oh and humanity exists. seems pretty reasonable to have hope in humanity though it is difficult sometimes.

Universe = 13.7 billion years. Humanity = 200,000 years. You = 100 years.

I have more faith in the universe, 96% of which we cannot comprehend.

I genuinely think it is wiser of a human to accept that humanity will not objectively provide them with any significant answers of purpose in their time period.

(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote: i`m not saying that without religion there would be no problems i am just saying there would be less without it.

"Religion" and "problems" is such a broad spectrum that it is simply an untrue claim.

People can be healthier with faith, similar to how people can be healthier with love.

(February 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm)justin Wrote: what seems to be true and what are true are two different things. besides he is just merely pointing out that while more people may believe in superstition it does not ACTUALLY make it wiser or true. it is just false perceptions.

Free will seems to be true. Whatever you or I believe to be true will not be true in another 200,000 years.

(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote: so should the slave stay a slave for the fear or the possibility that he may have to fight his master for freedom?

Being faithless can enslave people more.

(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote: excuse my naivity.

Ahh fuck, I've already replied to it...


...

(February 18, 2013 at 1:03 am)Question Mark Wrote: He believes it to be true, and wishes other people to see it that way too. The ramifications of it being accepted are not really important. In his view it'd be the same as accepting some uncomfortable fact of reality, which cannot be changed but only recognised, or ignored.

I understand what you are saying but clearly the ramifications of it being accepted are important if he truly wishes people to see what he sees - a lot of people with and without faith do not. Or they do and it is more suffering than before.

To some people, all of their theistic experiences being untrue is the equivalent to all of his scientific experiences being untrue. Moreover, one cannot talk of the ramifications of religion being accepted without addressing this seriously.

(February 18, 2013 at 2:52 am)naimless Wrote: I understand what you are saying but clearly the ramifications of it being accepted are important if he truly wishes people to see what he sees - a lot of people with and without faith do not. Or they do and it is more suffering than before.

To some people, all of their theistic experiences being untrue is the equivalent to all of his scientific experiences being untrue. Moreover, one cannot talk of the ramifications of religion being accepted without addressing this seriously.

I'd say that people feel worse when their religion is taken away than when science is proven wrong. I don't know what scientific "experiences" are, but when science is proven wrong, it's usually because scientists have found the right way.
When religion is proven wrong, the original notion was so contradictory to reality, that the wrench is understandably greater. Should this excuse Dawkins, or anyone else from informing people of the truth? It'll hurt perhaps, but most people it hurts will simply shut their ears and hum loudly or swear at him. I've heard it happen in his hate mail.

Was it wrong for christians to disillusion the Norse of the Aesir? Or the German tribes of their various gods? I'd say so, but it caused far more harm than what Dawkins is doing, and the christians at the time saw it as a necessary evil for the promotion of a positive future. They were wrong, but it's what they believed.

(February 18, 2013 at 9:40 am)Question Mark Wrote: When religion is proven wrong, the original notion was so contradictory to reality, that the wrench is understandably greater. Should this excuse Dawkins, or anyone else from informing people of the truth? It'll hurt perhaps, but most people it hurts will simply shut their ears and hum loudly or swear at him. I've heard it happen in his hate mail.

Yes but you talk about hurt in terms of boo hoo, get over it... just like the mainstream approach to depression or addiction. This shit can tear families apart.

Until science can replace what is taken away from people of faith in terms of morality and positive feeling then there is always a disconnection. People respond more to empathy and compassion.

There is a lot of eye for an eye shit going around between theists and atheists alike and it really makes one question the objectivity of atheism. There is clearly a part of the brain that people access a feeling of god with and some need to feel it more than others.

I'm not saying that we should maliciously go out and forcibly disillusion people of their beliefs, and that's not what Dawkins is doing. Telling people his views is relatively innocuous because it still leaves people with the choice to believe, not to believe, believe openly, or believe closetedly.
Sure, becoming an atheist can tear families apart, but if the beliefs that family holds is stronger than their bonds of familiar-love for one another, then those beliefs are corrosive and destructive, and need to be weened away. One doesn't find families of people with different ideas of how gravity works estranging each other when they don't agree.

What would be dangerous is if we made religion illegal, or if we made up false and terrible consequences attributed to belief in religion: eg/ if you keep believing, then the natural laws of the universe will condemn you upon death to being drawn down into the centre of the earth where you'll burn forever in the earth's molten core.
THAT would be dangerous.

(February 18, 2013 at 11:15 am)Question Mark Wrote: I'm not saying that we should maliciously go out and forcibly disillusion people of their beliefs, and that's not what Dawkins is doing. Telling people his views is relatively innocuous because it still leaves people with the choice to believe, not to believe, believe openly, or believe closetedly.
Sure, becoming an atheist can tear families apart, but if the beliefs that family holds is stronger than their bonds of familiar-love for one another, then those beliefs are corrosive and destructive, and need to be weened away. One doesn't find families of people with different ideas of how gravity works estranging each other when they don't agree.

What would be dangerous is if we made religion illegal, or if we made up false and terrible consequences attributed to belief in religion: eg/ if you keep believing, then the natural laws of the universe will condemn you upon death to being drawn down into the centre of the earth where you'll burn forever in the earth's molten core.
THAT would be dangerous.

I've seen Dawkins a few times say he wants to see the churches emptied and that people who follow religions are idiotic, and to treat them as misguided is being patronising.

Whilst that could all be true, I still feel it is dangerous.

(February 14, 2013 at 1:33 am)naimless Wrote: I had considered this, but Wiki explains:

Quote:Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing". He was confirmed, and embraced Christianity until his mid-teens, at which point he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life's complexity, and ceased believing in a god. Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing."

I just don't understand why a man left with nothing is motivated to spread nothing.

He's spreading rational skepticism, a respect for science, and not believing strange things without a good reason. He's one of the premier voices against creationism encroaching into science curricula. That's not nothing. Have you considered that the 'nothing he's referring to in that paragraph is merely his belief in God?

---

(February 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm)naimless Wrote: If he was motivated by truth he would focus on his work as a scientist, not as an atheist. He explained the theory of evolution led to his conclusion of atheism, so why try and spread atheism at all? Just spread the theory of evolution.

Because it doesn't matter if non-scientists are never exposed to the truth? Because you're basically criticizing him for writing books about what he thinks is true, and for some reason you think he should keep that to himself. Why do you think he should not share whatever truths he thinks he has discovered? He's primarily an educator, not a field scientist.

Spreading the theory of evolution as Dawkins wants people to appreciate it would be much the same thing as spreading atheism as what you have there is an explanation for life minus a creator or intelligent designing God. There would still be some room of a deist God who created the universe then left but would be about it. People like tomock of the 40-50% of Americans who reject evolution but they at least appreciate that the theory of evolution as it is wouldn't allow for a God, Christians elsewhere tend to miss this. Though what you can't do if you have any education is claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, you may as well claim the Earth to be flat.

(February 16, 2013 at 7:53 pm)naimless Wrote: So in America people ridiculed slavery. Slavery ended by a civil war. People in America still thank the war for ending slavery. But it did not need a war. Slavery ended the U.K. without civil war and it was just as prominent in the slave triangle.

There are many ways of approaching things and ridicule more often than not leads to more separations and ultimately bloodshed. Anyone who has studied human history and evolution for a significant period of time should recognise this.

You seem to be claiming that ridicule of slavery led to the civil war. Presumably your contention is that the proximate cause of the war (South Carolina's secession) was caused by ridicule of slavery. Can you support that contention with facts? The USA was the only country that had a war over slavery, but it was also the only country that was divided into slave and non-slave regions that had additional conflicting interests.

(February 18, 2013 at 11:35 am)naimless Wrote: I've seen Dawkins a few times say he wants to see the churches emptied and that people who follow religions are idiotic, and to treat them as misguided is being patronising.

Whilst that could all be true, I still feel it is dangerous.

If him voicing these opinions is dangerous, then I think there might be some bias against him from that perspective. Having an opinion, and having the authority to make something like that happen are two different things.

The Pope said he'd like to see contraception no longer used. Him saying that as a person is innocuous. Him saying that as a decree is dangerous.