Dawkins and Determinism

[Cato]

^^^^^^^
All of that was predetermined...
Wherever you go, there you are...
.

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going because you might not get there." - Yogi Berra

[naimless]

For starters, I believe that there is probably no god and that the universe is deterministic. Dawkins appears to believe similarly.

Now, why would a man who has discovered this allow himself to be emotionally attached to spreading atheism?

There is something so trivial about it all.

I believe you are using a very simplistic reading of determinism.

The following was written about Sam Harris, but it obviously applies.

"This view fails to factor in a fundamental and necessary element of determinism, viz. that the state of the universe at any given moment contributes to the state of the universe in the very next moment by way of a set of causal relationships. So, simply because Sam Harris cannot alter his physiology or change his mind in some way required by an agent-causal system does not mean he cannot participate in the causal chains which might results in another person being persuaded by a certain argument, etc. To claim that the state of the universe at any given moment is fixed regardless of the behavior of the objects which populate it would be a non-causal view of the universe, since the objects in that universe seemingly maintain no causal relationship with one another"

I've seen Sam a lot and I feel he addresses this point here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

I don't think he denies that he can participate, but rather that his participations are severely limited and the choices that are made are beyond his concious control. He considers deep breathing exercises and makes a good example of choosing any city in the world.

Indeed, Sam seems to "get it" a lot more than Dawkins does in terms of being aware of the negative effects that his preaching could also cause. In other words, just because you think you are participating positively in a causal chain does not make it so. I'm unsure of how someone who has studied this field cannot develop a "professional paranoia" or a "pause for thought" as Sam puts it with regards to criticising their own approaches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUg-1NCCowc

He makes the point well here, but when he tries to extend it, Dawkins expresses, "I think you have made that point well Sam, time to move on". Hitchens seems to get it a bit more - he addresses that there is something serious and important about faith and alludes to society separating numinous experiences from superstition possibly being a way to explore it more.

Hitchens describes it as an "X factor that will persist", Harris says a "usefulness to seeking profundity as a matter of attention" and "our neglect of this area as atheists, at times makes even our craziest opponents opponents seem wiser than we are". Indeed the West seems incredibly trivial over its preoccupations of the materialistic and only religion traditionally seems to annunciate this.

I have found cleverness does not equate to wisdom when dealing with people. People are, by in large, illogical, and there is a lot of this universe yet to discover. Hitchens says, "we ought to in a sense welcome... something like faith", he expands, "something like the belief that there must be more than we can know".

Dawkins takes this for a given, as if everyone he debates theism with recognises this when he refers to his atheism. I feel we only communicate in miscommunication this way. One does not play a draughts player in chess. It is unsporting.

Hitchens recognises, "clearly we're not cultural vandals but maybe we should think of the way in which so many people think that we are".

I meant more specifically and I think you know I did. Answering everything with "predetermination" still doesn't answer "how". It is not too dissimilar to how religious people respond when you ask them, what causes the tide to go in and out? Well god does, you don't need to explain it any further. In this case, well, predetermination does, you must leave it as an open question.


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.

He was the professor of public understanding of science at oxford. He is well known for his work in evolution and zoology as well. He does focus on evolution very much. Genetics also. Alot of these problems arise from creationist and religious distorting or attack these fields of study. He spoke out against religion because of it's corruptness. He defends atheism because of the fucked up things religion has done and it's irrational beliefs that stunt our progress in science, culture, morals, laws, and education to name a few. And saying if he was focused on the truth he would've just focus on the work well why is that? He stands against the lie and stone age myths that religion spreads and uses to harm and control things and people so how does him standing for atheism contradict him being motivated by truth?

I have seen him enter debates with a lot of people who it is pointless, and often cruel, to enter debates with. It ends up in an argument of "I prefer red, I prefer blue" similar to watching two politicians lock horns. The opposing person clearly hasn't had the same experience that he had as a teenager researching into metaphysical naturalism and being able to ask "why?" to his parents.

Furthermore, there are quite a few scientists who are not atheists. I think science focuses on agnosticism, if not then it remains unbiased on the issue of theism. I agree with him on a lot of things, especially regarding the harm organised religion causes. But there is also a harm in taking people out of theist beliefs, or blaming people for having them.

I'm unsure of how he does not consider this when addressing audiences that clearly have had a different experience to him.

[iameatingjam]

Just because things are predetermined does not mean that people stop having feelings and emotions, such as seeking.

[catfish]

^^^^^^^
All of that was predetermined...
Wherever you go, there you are...
.

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going because you might not get there." - Yogi Berra

"If we don't win, we run the risk of losing" I forget who said that, but it is absolutely the dumbest, most obvious thing said, EVER!!! lol
.

[naimless]

Just because things are predetermined does not mean that people stop having feelings and emotions, such as seeking.

or the need to believe in god...

[justin]

He was the professor of public understanding of science at oxford. He is well known for his work in evolution and zoology as well. He does focus on evolution very much. Genetics also. Alot of these problems arise from creationist and religious distorting or attack these fields of study. He spoke out against religion because of it's corruptness. He defends atheism because of the fucked up things religion has done and it's irrational beliefs that stunt our progress in science, culture, morals, laws, and education to name a few. And saying if he was focused on the truth he would've just focus on the work well why is that? He stands against the lie and stone age myths that religion spreads and uses to harm and control things and people so how does him standing for atheism contradict him being motivated by truth?

[/quote]
I have seen him enter debates with a lot of people who it is pointless, and often cruel, to enter debates with. [/quote]

Pointless? So only some people are worth his time? Who exactly are you talking about and why? Was there ever a criteria someone must meet to be good enough to discuss religion with? If not why would anyone he talks or debates with be pointless?
nd cruel? Oh boo freaking hoo. Some people got their feelings hurt. Their adults they should be able to deal with a dialogue with disagreements. But exactly how would he be being cruel? What has he done to someone that's so cruel?

[/quote]
It ends up in an argument of "I prefer red, I prefer blue" similar to watching two politicians lock horns. The opposing person clearly hasn't had the same experience that he had as a teenager researching into metaphysical naturalism and being able to ask "why?" to his parents.
[/quote]


So what? It's called rational thought and anyone can start using it at anytime. Shouldn't that be even more reason to discuss these things so as to educate the people who haven't grown up in a
Free inquiry environment? So as they can break free from the oppression that their religion have inflicted on their mind?

[/quote]
Furthermore, there are quite a few scientists who are not atheists. I think science focuses on agnosticism, if not then it remains unbiased on the issue of theism. I agree with him on a lot of things, especially regarding the harm organised religion causes. But there is also a harm in taking people out of theist beliefs, or blaming people for having them.
[/quote]

No one said there wasn't. Not all scientist are atheist. And no science focuses on science not theology until t!hey are forced into courts usually by the religious nut jobs trying to stir up trouble due to their wacky beliefs. And glad to know you realise the harm that organised religion causes. But now who is TAKING people out of theists beliefs? Discussing the flaw in logical sense that religion has isn't forcing people out of their theist beliefs. That is up to them if they want to hold on to stone age mentality but they can keep it to their selfs. Blaming them for having them? He is blaming them for making irrational decisions in politics, morals, laws, oppression on others etc. Based off of them. Think all you want the crazy crap that religion teachs but it's history has destroyed so much in human history based from those irrational beliefs. It should ridiculed because it is ridiculous.

[naimless]

Pointless? So only some people are worth his time? Who exactly are you talking about and why? Was there ever a criteria someone must meet to be good enough to discuss religion with? If not why would anyone he talks or debates with be pointless?
nd cruel? Oh boo freaking hoo. Some people got their feelings hurt. Their adults they should be able to deal with a dialogue with disagreements. But exactly how would he be being cruel? What has he done to someone that's so cruel?

No, it is pointless approaching everyone with the view that religion has oppressed them and that they are capable of comprehending what he refers to as atheism and evolution.

You wouldn't taunt a mentally ill person or a drug addict in the same way, which is what I would equate some aspects of theism to. Quite frankly, approaching any other human being with a lack of empathy to their condition isn't the best place to start.

It ends up in an argument of "I prefer red, I prefer blue" similar to watching two politicians lock horns. The opposing person clearly hasn't had the same experience that he had as a teenager researching into metaphysical naturalism and being able to ask "why?" to his parents.

So what? It's called rational thought and anyone can start using it at anytime. Shouldn't that be even more reason to discuss these things so as to educate the people who haven't grown up in a
Free inquiry environment? So as they can break free from the oppression that their religion have inflicted on their mind?

Not everyone has the same capabilities of rational thought. You do not give someone that cannot even add or subtract a long multiplication question.

Yes, education is important, and ideally people would be educated objectively from birth. However, we do not live in an ideal world. A lot of parents need the devil as a babysitting technique, etc., and it can have long lasting effects.

But again, not everyone is oppressed by religion, and there are people who have significant numinous experiences that Dawkins has not had. So while it is true they may be uneducated in approaching logical thought, Dawkins also appears uneducated in approaching some of their thoughts with compassion.

Furthermore, there are quite a few scientists who are not atheists. I think science focuses on agnosticism, if not then it remains unbiased on the issue of theism. I agree with him on a lot of things, especially regarding the harm organised religion causes. But there is also a harm in taking people out of theist beliefs, or blaming people for having them.

No one said there wasn't. Not all scientist are atheist. And no science focuses on science not theology until t!hey are forced into courts usually by the religious nut jobs trying to stir up trouble due to their wacky beliefs. And glad to know you realise the harm that organised religion causes. But now who is TAKING people out of theists beliefs? Discussing the flaw in logical sense that religion has isn't forcing people out of their theist beliefs. That is up to them if they want to hold on to stone age mentality but they can keep it to their selfs. Blaming them for having them? He is blaming them for making irrational decisions in politics, morals, laws, oppression on others etc. Based off of them. Think all you want the crazy crap that religion teachs but it's history has destroyed so much in human history based from those irrational beliefs. It should ridiculed because it is ridiculous.

I don't feel the ridicule actually helps the world in any significant way. In fact it can make many people more fundamentalist.

[justin]

Pointless? So only some people are worth his time? Who exactly are you talking about and why? Was there ever a criteria someone must meet to be good enough to discuss religion with? If not why would anyone he talks or debates with be pointless?
nd cruel? Oh boo freaking hoo. Some people got their feelings hurt. Their adults they should be able to deal with a dialogue with disagreements. But exactly how would he be being cruel? What has he done to someone that's so cruel?

No, it is pointless approaching everyone with the view that religion has oppressed them and that they are capable of comprehending what he refers to as atheism and evolution.[/quote]

you can not be serious in thinking this. why would people not be able to comprehend what he refers to as atheism and evolution? he didn`t make up some special definitions for it and it is complex concept to understand as a matter of fact it is probably the easiest concept to understand. same thing with evolution except it is actually more complex but what is wrong with teaching evidence based theories? if someone is a theist and goes to school is the teachers efforts pointless to teach evolution?

[/quote]
You wouldn't taunt a mentally ill person or a drug addict in the same way, which is what I would equate some aspects of theism to. Quite frankly, approaching any other human being with a lack of empathy to their condition isn't the best place to start.[/quote]

theists are not for the most part mentally ill or drug addicts. your analogy sucks. you just saying he is being mean. he isn`t taunting any one. he is holding them accountable for their beliefs and choices and saying that it is destructive to truth to accept these huge claims on faith and then make the choices that are influenced from THEIR faith. choices that affect other people.

So what? It's called rational thought and anyone can start using it at anytime. Shouldn't that be even more reason to discuss these things so as to educate the people who haven't grown up in a
Free inquiry environment? So as they can break free from the oppression that their religion have inflicted on their mind?

[/quote]
Not everyone has the same capabilities of rational thought. You do not give someone that cannot even add or subtract a long multiplication question.[/quote]

i`m starting to think you think theists are the same as mentally retarted. theists CAN do long multiplication questions among other amazing things. just the religion is the irrational beliefs that influnces them. it doesn`t make them actually handicap just distorts the truth which leads to distorted actions.

[/quote]
Yes, education is important, and ideally people would be educated objectively from birth. However, we do not live in an ideal world. A lot of parents need the devil as a babysitting technique, etc., and it can have long lasting effects.[/quote]

do you have no hope for humanity?

[/quote]
But again, not everyone is oppressed by religion,[/quote]

name one thing that religion doesn`t put it`s dirty little hand into?

[/quote] and there are people who have significant numinous experiences that Dawkins has not had. So while it is true they may be uneducated in approaching logical thought, Dawkins also appears uneducated in approaching some of their thoughts with compassion.[/quote]

what has he done that is so uncompassionate?

No one said there wasn't. Not all scientist are atheist. And no science focuses on science not theology until t!hey are forced into courts usually by the religious nut jobs trying to stir up trouble due to their wacky beliefs. And glad to know you realise the harm that organised religion causes. But now who is TAKING people out of theists beliefs? Discussing the flaw in logical sense that religion has isn't forcing people out of their theist beliefs. That is up to them if they want to hold on to stone age mentality but they can keep it to their selfs. Blaming them for having them? He is blaming them for making irrational decisions in politics, morals, laws, oppression on others etc. Based off of them. Think all you want the crazy crap that religion teachs but it's history has destroyed so much in human history based from those irrational beliefs. It should ridiculed because it is ridiculous.

I don't feel the ridicule actually helps the world in any significant way. In fact it can make many people more fundamentalist.
[/quote]

so when people ridiculed slavery and the fundamentalist who supported it di that not help in any significant way?

[naimless]

No, it is pointless approaching everyone with the view that religion has oppressed them and that they are capable of comprehending what he refers to as atheism and evolution.

you can not be serious in thinking this. why would people not be able to comprehend what he refers to as atheism and evolution? he didn`t make up some special definitions for it and it is complex concept to understand as a matter of fact it is probably the easiest concept to understand. same thing with evolution except it is actually more complex but what is wrong with teaching evidence based theories?

The same way how you can't comprehend how to use quote tags, or basic spelling and grammar such as the difference between "their", "there", and "they're". I didn't judge you for it and still took on board what you were saying as another human being because you have clearly had a different experience to me.

if someone is a theist and goes to school is the teachers efforts pointless to teach evolution?

No, and I said Dawkins' focus should solely be on teaching evolution as opposed to teaching "atheism", if he wants more people to appreciate atheism. He came to his atheistic conclusions from evolution, so it makes sense to always teach the former experience to his audience before the latter.

If his audience do not understand evolution, he is talking to a brick wall with regards to his views on atheism. In the same way I doubt that you could understand everyone's religious experience. There are 7 billion different perceptions on this and many misconceptions. We need to define the variables each time before we delve into the arguments.

You wouldn't taunt a mentally ill person or a drug addict in the same way, which is what I would equate some aspects of theism to. Quite frankly, approaching any other human being with a lack of empathy to their condition isn't the best place to start.

theists are not for the most part mentally ill or drug addicts. your analogy sucks. you just saying he is being mean. he isn`t taunting any one. he is holding them accountable for their beliefs and choices and saying that it is destructive to truth to accept these huge claims on faith and then make the choices that are influenced from THEIR faith. choices that affect other people.

Someone believing in an imaginary friend is, for the most part, cognitive dissidence. A lot of people either have more faith, or have more drugs in order to satisfy that part of the brain and cope with daily functions. Some of the people he encounters he unnecessarily distresses.

Why would he hold them accountable for their beliefs if they evolved to have those beliefs? Challenging someone on this very rarely results in the opposing person suddenly obtaining the beliefs of the challenging person. In many cases both parties walk away with stronger convictions in their own ideas because neither has empathised with each-other's experience.

So what? It's called rational thought and anyone can start using it at anytime. Shouldn't that be even more reason to discuss these things so as to educate the people who haven't grown up in a
Free inquiry environment? So as they can break free from the oppression that their religion have inflicted on their mind?

Not everyone has the same capabilities of rational thought. You do not give someone that cannot even add or subtract a long multiplication question.

i`m starting to think you think theists are the same as mentally retarted. theists CAN do long multiplication questions among other amazing things. just the religion is the irrational beliefs that influnces them. it doesn`t make them actually handicap just distorts the truth which leads to distorted actions.

I would start to think you are mentally retarded if I didn't understand you don't like my analogies. The point is you teach people to count and add first. You need to teach a religious person your definitions of key terms first before you use them.

If I wrote a book, I would not expect everyone to read it and get it no matter how good it was, and neither should Dawkins.

Yes, education is important, and ideally people would be educated objectively from birth. However, we do not live in an ideal world. A lot of parents need the devil as a babysitting technique, etc., and it can have long lasting effects.

do you have no hope for humanity?

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.

But again, not everyone is oppressed by religion,

name one thing that religion doesn`t put it`s dirty little hand into?

Religion is a part of our evolution as a species. There are varying degrees of it. Jainism is possibly the most harmless practice I have ever heard about. A lot of people see theism as a personal thing, beyond organised religion, but still have faith in that which they cannot comprehend. Very often when one disrespects a personal "god", it could be a synonym for "nature" or the "universe".

Organised religions are corrupt, there is no doubt about that. But so is any governmental organisation, even if it is secular. People and systems do not mix well. It is individualism and exploring space that unites us. Not trying to spread one belief or disbelief for all.

The USA is a highly oppressive establishment but it could be a less oppressive place for a woman to live than Saudi Arabia. Protestantism could be less oppressive to a choir boy than Catholicism, Buddhism could be less oppressive to a scientist than Islam.

and there are people who have significant numinous experiences that Dawkins has not had. So while it is true they may be uneducated in approaching logical thought, Dawkins also appears uneducated in approaching some of their thoughts with compassion.

what has he done that is so uncompassionate?

Not accepted that numinous experiences are powerful enough to make superstition seem wiser than logical thought. I honestly believe some people can obtain more euphoria through faith in a higher power than a Class A drug.

No one said there wasn't. Not all scientist are atheist. And no science focuses on science not theology until t!hey are forced into courts usually by the religious nut jobs trying to stir up trouble due to their wacky beliefs. And glad to know you realise the harm that organised religion causes. But now who is TAKING people out of theists beliefs? Discussing the flaw in logical sense that religion has isn't forcing people out of their theist beliefs. That is up to them if they want to hold on to stone age mentality but they can keep it to their selfs. Blaming them for having them? He is blaming them for making irrational decisions in politics, morals, laws, oppression on others etc. Based off of them. Think all you want the crazy crap that religion teachs but it's history has destroyed so much in human history based from those irrational beliefs. It should ridiculed because it is ridiculous.

I don't feel the ridicule actually helps the world in any significant way. In fact it can make many people more fundamentalist.

so when people ridiculed slavery and the fundamentalist who supported it di that not help in any significant way?

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.

[justin]

you can not be serious in thinking this. why would people not be able to comprehend what he refers to as atheism and evolution? he didn`t make up some special definitions for it and it is complex concept to understand as a matter of fact it is probably the easiest concept to understand. same thing with evolution except it is actually more complex but what is wrong with teaching evidence based theories?

The same way how you can't comprehend how to use quote tags, or basic spelling and grammar such as the difference between "their", "there", and "they're". I didn't judge you for it and still took on board what you were saying as another human being because you have clearly had a different experience to me.[/quote]

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.

if someone is a theist and goes to school is the teachers efforts pointless to teach evolution?

[/quote]
No, and I said Dawkins' focus should solely be on teaching evolution as opposed to teaching "atheism", if he wants more people to appreciate atheism. He came to his atheistic conclusions from evolution, so it makes sense to always teach the former experience to his audience before the latter.

If his audience do not understand evolution, he is talking to a brick wall with regards to his views on atheism. In the same way I doubt that you could understand everyone's religious experience. There are 7 billion different perceptions on this and many misconceptions. We need to define the variables each time before we delve into the arguments.[/quote]

While i can agree that it does make sense to teach from his experiance i wouldn`t think it would be necessary or efficient. he has addressed his experiances throughout his book which is the more efficient way to such task. another thing is 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.

theists are not for the most part mentally ill or drug addicts. your analogy sucks. you just saying he is being mean. he isn`t taunting any one. he is holding them accountable for their beliefs and choices and saying that it is destructive to truth to accept these huge claims on faith and then make the choices that are influenced from THEIR faith. choices that affect other people.

[/quote]Someone believing in an imaginary friend is, for the most part, cognitive dissidence. A lot of people either have more faith, or have more drugs in order to satisfy that part of the brain and cope with daily functions. Some of the people he encounters he unnecessarily distresses.

Why would he hold them accountable for their beliefs if they evolved to have those beliefs? Challenging someone on this very rarely results in the opposing person suddenly obtaining the beliefs of the challenging person. In many cases both parties walk away with stronger convictions in their own ideas because neither has empathised with each-other's experience.[/quote]

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.

So what? It's called rational thought and anyone can start using it at anytime. Shouldn't that be even more reason to discuss these things so as to educate the people who haven't grown up in a
Free inquiry environment? So as they can break free from the oppression that their religion have inflicted on their mind?


i`m starting to think you think theists are the same as mentally retarted. theists CAN do long multiplication questions among other amazing things. just the religion is the irrational beliefs that influnces them. it doesn`t make them actually handicap just distorts the truth which leads to distorted actions.

[/quote]I would start to think you are mentally retarded if I didn't understand you don't like my analogies.[/quote]

They do not suck because i do not favor them, though i do not favor them because they do suck is true. They suck because of poor entailments.

[/quote]
The point is you teach people to count and add first. You need to teach a religious person your definitions of key terms first before you use them.

If I wrote a book, I would not expect everyone to read it and get it no matter how good it was, and neither should Dawkins.[/quote]

he does address his definitions quite often. he spent alot of time on his definitions in his books as well.

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.[/quote]

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.

name one thing that religion doesn`t put it`s dirty little hand into?

[/quote]
Religion is a part of our evolution as a species. There are varying degrees of it. Jainism is possibly the most harmless practice I have ever heard about. A lot of people see theism as a personal thing, beyond organised religion, but still have faith in that which they cannot comprehend. Very often when one disrespects a personal "god", it could be a synonym for "nature" or the "universe".

Organised religions are corrupt, there is no doubt about that. But so is any governmental organisation, even if it is secular. People and systems do not mix well. It is individualism and exploring space that unites us. Not trying to spread one belief or disbelief for all.

The USA is a highly oppressive establishment but it could be a less oppressive place for a woman to live than Saudi Arabia. Protestantism could be less oppressive to a choir boy than Catholicism, Buddhism could be less oppressive to a scientist than Islam.[/quote]

i`m not saying that without religion there would be no problems i am just saying there would be less without it.

what has he done that is so uncompassionate?

[/quote]
Not accepted that numinous experiences are powerful enough to make superstition seem wiser than logical thought. I honestly believe some people can obtain more euphoria through faith in a higher power than a Class A drug.[/quote]

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.

so when people ridiculed slavery and the fundamentalist who supported it di that not help in any significant way?

[/quote]
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.[/quote]

no we thank the fact that the fundamentalist lost the war that was originally trying to be avoided. they thank the actions and ridicule by historical figures for ending slavery. no it did not. but you cannot control the actions ridiculees all you can do is adapt and do what is needed in order change for the better. fear for the lashing out of the fundamentalist should not keep you from ridiculing them.

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

so should the slave stay a slave for the fear or the possibility that he may have to fight his master for freedom? p.s. i obviously am having touble getting this quote tag thing down. i don`t know what i am doing wrong. excuse my naivity.