Richard Dawkins Says Harry Potter is Evil

[Zosi]

You guys are scary. You obviously attribute quality to life on your own, but what I'm saying is, that when you do that, you are presupposing that what you believe to be of quality is right, and why? Why are YOU right about what you should be doing? That's why we have so many arrogant assholes, because everyone feels they're entitled to feel however they want about their lives. I believe there are objective truths, and I think they stay more or less consistent throughout history, and if you want to deny that, then you're falling into the ream of relativism.

You guys are scary. You obviously attribute your moral values to a non-human source, but what I'm saying is, that when you do that, you are presupposing that what they believe to be moral value is right, and why? Why are THEY right about what you should be doing? That's why we have so many morally bankrupt people, because everyone is led to believe that they have to rely on the man in the sky to tell them what right and wrong is. I don't believe that there is objective morality, and I think that moral values are entirely dependent on the culture and community with which one chooses to interact, and if you want to deny that, then you're falling into the realm of absolutism.

Relativism doesn't hold up very well anywhere. So who's the quack? The person who believes in God? Or the person who give quality to life arbitrarily on their own? With no rhyme or reason? And with no way (no GOOD way, at least) to tie that into a simple biological design. It doesn't address the questions of quality of life, it simply bypasses them, and you make a lot of assumptions by doing it.

Absolutism doesn't hold up very well anywhere. So who's the quack? The person who follows their own values based on experience? Or he person who arbitrarily trusts an invisible man to tell them right from wrong? And with no way (no GOOD way, at least) to explain why the invisible man is right. It doesn't address the questions of moral value, it simply bypasses them by deciding them arbitrarily, and you make a lot of assumptions by doing it.

For someone who supposedly studied philosophy for five years, you argue like a third grader in a Catholic school, so I wrote my reply in a manner which should be understandable by any third grader: "NO U!!!".

[Beckwin]

I'm challenging conventions, not their arguments for atheism. I feel like there's an institutionalized and unnecessary default reverence and credibility given to religion, and that it consciously and unconsciously affects atheists/non-believers. It's "status-quo" as you'd like to say. My only argument is challenging that when I see it manifest. I wouldn't say it's a matter of devaluing the atheist/non-believer arguments, but overvaluing religion that I'm talking about.

[Kuya]

Zosi, with that argument, do you believe that there's no such thing as an absolute moral?

[Kuya]

I'm challenging conventions, not their arguments for atheism. I feel like there's an institutionalized and unnecessary default reverence and credibility given to religion, and that it consciously and unconsciously affects atheists/non-believers. It's "status-quo" as you'd like to say. My only argument is challenging that when I see it manifest. I wouldn't say it's a matter of devaluing the atheist/non-believer arguments, but overvaluing religion that I'm talking about.

You're saying that they aren't criticizing religion enough because it is too taboo for them, which means they treat something as a given. I wouldn't know how you would prove that someone is treating the subject as taboo, without you pointing out them treating something as a given; take for example this: In the discussion of sexuality, the idea that is always pointed out is that we need to find out whether homosexuality is innate or not, yet, no one ever says that we need to find out whether heterosexuality is innate or not, in other words, heterosexuality is treated as a given, as a taboo, and given reverence that makes it harder to critique.

So in order to prove the people you are talking about are giving it reverence, you need to point out when they're making assumptions in the favour of religion, like for example, when they say that you require religion to do good, however, this does not explain why you say that other examples, such as Kaylia's argument, or my argument for agnosticism is treating religion as taboo, as neither of us treated it as a given.

[Nystul]

I was trying to say there's quality to life, and science only measures quantity. It takes a person to give a quality to aspects of humanity, and if you deny that fact, then you should stick by your position, and be a nihilist, or a relativist, neither of which have firmer ground than any religion.

Science is not designed for nor does it attempt to address philosophical questions. It is simply an analytical process to explain the natural world around us. The only time science treads on the territory of religion is when people who are religious get wrapped up in fear because they have simply attributed everything to religion (extending religion into the rational natural world) and now all of a sudden they have to rework their understanding. But science does not and will not "replace" god or religion because, as you said, it makes no attempt to get into philosophical questions.

Perhaps this is more clear- the room for philosophy or religion and the niche for science are two separate areas. One does not and should not infringe upon the other. The error that hard line religious people is that they extend religion into the scientific world (ie creationism, reproductive discussions, etc). The problem with Dawkins is that he extends science into philosophical issues ("science disproves God"-- my old professor always said "you can't weigh an angel.") So both are wrong and in his own way Dawkins is carrying on his own fairy tale.

[Zosi]

Zosi, with that argument, do you believe that there's no such thing as an absolute moral?

Absolutely not, no pun intended. Morals are a construction of society and are only valid within that societal context. The reason why certain societies have overlapping morals is actually quite simple. Just like how certain genes can, when mutated, lead to the premature death of the individual, certain moral rules, when not enforced, can lead to the destruction of the society. However, the difference between that and the man-in-the-sky morality is that those common moral values are proposed for practical reasons with plenty of evidence to suggest that they are necessary, not because the man in the sky wrote it on a tablet and sent it down the mountain. Think of those shared morals as the result of millennia of societal evolution, rather than the arbitrary decree of an all-powerful being.

[Beckwin]

kuya, I think your "givens" are too apples-and-oranges to compare across subjects. the terrorism thing is flipping the situation around, even though the societal pressure/taboo element is still there to dictate. Just like it's socially unaccepted to not value religion favorable, it's socially unaccepted to view terrorism as anything but a) complete absolute evil and b) antithetical to American/western values/culture/etc. That in turn gives too much value to US policy and devalues the discussion as a whole.

Just as I (and Churchill, and Elvis, and others) will point out how that taboo factor overvalues US policy, I point out that taboo/social institutionalization of religion causes overvaluation.

[Kuya]

Absolutely not, no pun intended. Morals are a construction of society and are only valid within that societal context. The reason why certain societies have overlapping morals is actually quite simple. Just like how certain genes can, when mutated, lead to the death of the individual, certain moral rules, when not enforced, can lead to the destruction of the society. However, the difference between that and the man-in-the-sky morality is that those common moral values are proposed for practical reasons with plenty of evidence to suggest that they are necessary, not because the man in the sky wrote it on a tablet and sent it down the mountain. Think of those shared morals as the result of millennia of societal evolution, rather than the arbitrary decree of an all-powerful being.

Though i'd be careful with what's considered necessary, and what's considered right (in a social sense), i generally agree.

[Churchill]

Oh no, I'm going against the will of the group how dare I have a different opinion.

[Kuya]

kuya, I think your "givens" are too apples-and-oranges to compare across subjects. the terrorism thing is flipping the situation around, even though the societal pressure/taboo element is still there to dictate. Just like it's socially unaccepted to not value religion favorable, it's socially unaccepted to view terrorism as anything but a) complete absolute evil and b) antithetical to American/western values/culture/etc. That in turn gives too much value to US policy and devalues the discussion as a whole.

Just as I (and Churchill, and Elvis, and others) will point out how that taboo factor overvalues US policy, I point out that taboo/social institutionalization of religion causes overvaluation.

Yes, but again, i'm not saying that pointing out those biases is wrong; what i'm saying is that wantonly declaring it at anyone without proving it is simply disingenuous. Whether you are trying to devalue people's arguments or simply pointing out a bias, obviously i can't know your intentions, you are also generalizing it in this thread. As i've already pointed out, it's one thing to assume good only comes from religion, it's another to claim that defending agnosticism or agnostic atheism is the same thing as the former.

[Rocl]

angstheist is about as valid a term as "fake America"/"real America"

So you're not only an angtheist but a fake American too. I can't wait until the mavericks take office and purge the holy land of real America of people like you.

[Kaelan?]

Science is not designed for nor does it attempt to address philosophical questions. It is simply an analytical process to explain the natural world around us. The only time science treads on the territory of religion is when people who are religious get wrapped up in fear because they have simply attributed everything to religion (extending religion into the rational natural world) and now all of a sudden they have to rework their understanding. But science does not and will not "replace" god or religion because, as you said, it makes no attempt to get into philosophical questions.

Perhaps this is more clear- the room for philosophy or religion and the niche for science are two separate areas. One does not and should not infringe upon the other. The error that hard line religious people is that they extend religion into the scientific world (ie creationism, reproductive discussions, etc). The problem with Dawkins is that he extends science into philosophical issues ("science disproves God"-- my old professor always said "you can't weigh an angel.") So both are wrong and in his own way Dawkins is carrying on his own fairy tale.

First of all, any and every religion that attempts to explain anything about reality (i.e. virtually all of them, except maybe philosophical buddhism and satanism, but those are really more philosophies than religions in every sense but the legal one) is by doing so treading on the ground of science. The whole idea of non-overlapping magisteria is completely false for any meaningful definition of religion - as soon as you get into what's actually true and what's actually not true you get into the realm of science, whether science has gotten around to fully explain what you're talking about or not. Almost all religions by definition "extend into the natural world".

Second, where do you get all this blind hatred for people like Dawkins from? (and I'm assuming you feel the same way about Harris, Dennet, Hitchens and most other famous atheists you know - assuming you actually do know more than one). Pretty much every single time I hear someone say "X atheist is retarded", they follow by either attacking a position the person they're talking about doesn't actually hold ("lol he wants to eradicate religion") or grossly misinterpreting something they've said, like he's some kind of Islamic fundamentalist trying to impose an atheist version of Sharia law on the rest of the world. Do you just listen to peoples' tone of voice without ever paying any attention to what they're actually saying? Can you give a more specific example of any opinions he (or anyone else) actually has that you disagree with, and why?

[Nystul]

I could respond but I know how it would go and it's just not interesting enough for me to bother with and this GB/Tenn game is getting good and I need to shower.

I was wondering though if it would be a religious or atheist that would respond first to my post since I basically said the same thing about both.

[Charla]

Well, since this thread apparently moves too fast for me to contribute more than once a page (stupid need to sleep), I'm just going to point out that since nobody actually tried to argue with my explanation for the necessity of religion, it has been allowed to stand.

As for the rebranding issue from last page, according to this, the term gay acquired its 20th century meaning spontaneously, rather than via a concerted effort on the part of any community or subculture. What's more, because the existing terms for homosexuals were considered more or less unsuitable or derogatory, there was a demand for a new word. It's really a different issue than the examples I gave last page.

[Alleya]

Here you go, then.

My life sucks. Science isn't going to do anything about it. My parents taught me a religion. Therefore, if by following that religion there is a chance that my life may eventually stop sucking, it's worth a try..

Sorry you feel that way. Enjoy living a life of false comfort and willful ignorance. Also, if religion is worth a try, why isn't science? Somehow I doubt you've read all scientific literature, or even the most minuscule portion of it.

Happy?

[Charla]

Better than suicide! (or so I'm told)

edit: now that I think about it, this seems to be something that (western) secular and religious values agree completely on. Society looks down on suicides and pities them, and religion says it's killing and therefore a sin. The essential difference is that secular society expects everyone to want to live for its own sake, while religion recognizes that living for its own sake may or may not be worthwhile, and posits something that makes it worthwhile by definition (namely afterlife).

In case you'd like a proper counterargument: false comfort is better than misery, by any measurement you'd care to use.

As for "trying science", I'd love to. Give me a technological singularity in my lifetime and I'll be the first to volunteer for the transhumanism experiments. Technological afterlife is by no means inferior to supernatural afterlife, it simply isn't possible yet.

[Alleya]

Better than suicide! (or so I'm told)

Knowledge = suicide? Can't say I'm familiar with this concept.

[Kuya]

. Consequently, a number of ironic euphemisms were used to hint at suspected homosexuality. Examples include "Such a nice man," "Such a gay man," "Such beautiful handwriting," all with the stress deliberately on the otherwise completely innocent adjective.[citation needed]

lol

Knowledge = suicide? Can't say I'm familiar with this concept.

Where have you been lol?

[Alleya]

Where have you been lol?

(Ecclesiastes 1:18 ) For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

I guess you're right...


(Proverbs, 4:7)Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Wait, FUCK...

[Kuya]

Are you saying the bible contradicts itself, or that i contradict myself?