Parents charged for not helping dying daughter

[Rafcio]

Losing the areas that are being proven to be irrational and illogical is mainly what I'm arguing for, so I don't feel obliged to go into detail since you seem to agree.
I admit that morally and philosophically religion still stands strong, but even here slowly but steadily it's forced to bend to the changing culture.

And you know, the way a religion works is that it is based on two pillars supporting each other. On one side you have morality and philosophy which dictates how we should act, and on the other it is the attempt to convince people of why we should act this way.

Since many religious dogmas are being proven to be illogical and untrue, its structure will collapse under itself, since you can't live a religious life without proper motivation. Even if there are some good morals to be had in some religious stories, you can follow such morals secularly.


As for the energy analogy, I think it sounds nice, but in practise, this "energy" can simply be converted to non religious means. For example, atheists can still be called spiritual (in a non supernatural way of course), have a sense of wonder etc.

[Apoo]

he person I am referring to here is Sam Harris, who said that atheists should not try to dismantle religion, but instead emphasize reason.

I wonder just how much you've actually read of him, because if there ever was a person who is hostile to religion, that's Sam Harris.

[Cane_The9lives]

Yes that speech he gave, that got the polite light clap(While dawkins militant rantings got the ovation) seriously contradicted many things he has said in the past whether it be books or interviews.

[Insin]

So what? I was quoting the context of his speech, not his life works.

[Apoo]

Perhaps, but lumping him as opposite to Dawkins in his militant atheism agenda might not be very accurate. To me, it sounded like Harris came up with that idea on the plane ride to the convention and just wanted to say something different. Just going off by his books, you would totally think he's down with Dawkins. I was laughing to myself thinking about this in that lounge thread, because ironically, Harris has warned time and time again against the dangers of being moderate.

[Rafcio]

What the two of them are against is pretty much the same. It's the means by which they would go about it that has its differences.

[Apoo]

Originally Posted by Rafcio

What the two of them are against is pretty much the same. It's the means by which they would go about it that has its differences.

What is that difference?

[Rafcio]

Harris criticizes religion and provides alternatives such science and non supernatural spirituality, while Dawkins in addition to promoting science wages a... verbal war against religion which includes insulting their intelligence etc.

I think Dawkins is taking it a step too far, because if he forces his side too much, religious people will just get too defensive to listen to him at all.
In my opinion Dawkins makes a lot of good points and he can be entertaining, but I don't think that he's very effective with religious people.

[Apoo]

But Harris isn't any better. If you read the end of faith, and a letter to a christian nation, he's a hostile to religion as Dawkins is. I actually thought he was worse.

[Insin]

I find it to be rather distasteful at times, the writings of both of them. Obviously their books have an agenda to them. That's why I just prefer to read scientific literature instead.

Dawkins seems to attract spiteful atheists, because of how he presents himself and the things he says. Atheists differ a lot. Some became atheists because it was a logical conclusion that they reached. Others become atheists, simply because they harbor negative feelings towards their old religions. Someone like Dawkins attracts the latter.

I tolerate other people's beliefs, but mine have not always been tolerated. To tactlessly insult and degrade other people with your own spiritual beliefs is something that I am not fond of. Criticism can be made, but individual attacks on intelligence and the like are immature, and just represent insecurity with one's self.

I just think that promoting an agenda, like the atheism in their books, is just too much like the agendas of theistic religion. Emphasizing reason, and helping people to understand science seems far more appropiate for people who advocate for science.

[Apoo]

Dawkins has said time after time that he does not go out of his way to offend anyone. Even at the start of the god delusion, he said that it was unavoidable that some people will find what he wrote offensive, but his intention was not to offend anyone. He is verbally blunt, but a lot less than the opposition actually, as he doesn't condemn anyone to hell. Maybe I'm getting you wrong, bur from what Im reading you are making Dawkins sound like some angry guy out to rile up the troops in a crusade against religion.

Everyone that mentions that convention is placing waaaaaaaaay too much emphasis on Dawkins militant atheism. That whole concept is not nearly as radical as it sounds. The whole imagine a world without religion tagline is a pipedream. I'm sure most atheists out there have had the same fantasy, regardless of weather they are moderate atheists or more 'militant' atheists. I chuckle every time anyone brings up that convention in an attempt to make Dawkins look like the atheist end of the fundamentalist spectrum, which is so ridiculous it makes you laugh. Dawkins ins't any less radical in his professing atheism than any of the other top atheist writers like Dennet, Harris and Hitchens.

To tactlessly insult and degrade other people with your own spiritual beliefs is something that I am not fond of. Criticism can be made, but individual attacks on intelligence and the like are immature, and just represent insecurity with one's self.

Stupid reasoning imo. Ridicule is a very powerful agent, specially when you have basis. Tactlessly degrading people is what the creationist do. Individual attacks on intelligence are warranted when people pretend to know things they are actually quite ignorant in. I'm guessing you find people calling George Bush a moron tactlessly degrading, even though it's not very far off from the truth. Or is just that you think Religion should be immune to criticism. I find this very funny. No one care when people blast political pundits for the stupid things that come out of their mouth, but when religion is concerned, that's too touchy and your are automatically radical for pointing out the truth (That these people are retards and are fucking up the country/world).

Can you also point to examples of things Dawkins or Harris has said which are in your opinion distasteful?

[Rafcio]

Publicly, Harris seems to be more tame and tactful, while Dawkins comes off more snappy and confrontational in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, me saying that he's taking a step too far is not much of a criticism. He's certainly much better than the average person he's arguing against.

For distasteful comments, I recall Dawkins directly implying that religious people are dumber than atheists. For a guy who's job is public understanding of science, that's not very tactful or persuasive thing to say, considering that 85% of people are religious.

It's very similar to debates here. Sometimes when I got anoyed when arguing with people like Juno, Antioch, pschy lapre, or professional weskler I became extra sarcastic and snappy which had an inverse relationship with me getting their concessions, regardless of the quality of my actual arguments. On the other side I have seen Insin or Muken convince their opposition to concession more effectively by being more patient and tactful.

Ridicule can be a used very effectively for specific situations (like when you can make the other side realize the absurdity of their position), but it's a method which can easily turn against you. If you use too much of it, you just hurt your cause.

I think Tyson put it well:

[Apoo]

For distasteful comments, I recall Dawkins directly implying that religious people are dumber than atheists.

I'm preety sure he never said anything of the sort, or you are just taking that out of context.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Tony

Dawkins has said time after time that he does not go out of his way to offend anyone.

His actual words and actions speak louder than what he says in defense.

Originally Posted by Tony

Everyone that mentions that convention is placing waaaaaaaaay too much emphasis on Dawkins militant atheism. That whole concept is not nearly as radical as it sounds. The whole imagine a world without religion tagline is a pipedream. I'm sure most atheists out there have had the same fantasy, regardless of weather they are moderate atheists or more 'militant' atheists.

Another thing about dawkins is he blasts moderate christians, or moderate religious people, yet says nothing about moderate athiests.

Why isnt the idea of moderate athiesm just as distasteful as moderate theism to him?

Originally Posted by Tony

I chuckle every time anyone brings up that convention in an attempt to make Dawkins look like the atheist end of the fundamentalist spectrum, which is so ridiculous it makes you laugh. Dawkins ins't any less radical in his professing atheism than any of the other top atheist writers like Dennet, Harris and Hitchens.

As far as i know richard dawkins is the only athiest i have ever seen, who thought the concepts of religion and racism were comperable, and should be compared as if they were interlinked.
Or comparing large religious gatherings, to neo nazi rallies.

Originally Posted by Tony

Stupid reasoning imo. Ridicule is a very powerful agent, specially when you have basis.

Problem is, ridicule tends to be ineffective since you are pretty much turning your target individual off from you, since you are insulting him.

Originally Posted by Tony

Individual attacks on intelligence are warranted when people pretend to know things they are actually quite ignorant in.

No individual attacks are the result of the annoyance or intolerance of the one spouting them, someone who cant interact civilized, around others who are different from him.

Basic rule of diplomacy, if you want to open up civilized negotiations with an opposing side, using as little antagonization as possible generally is the best way to achieve that.

Originally Posted by Tony

I'm guessing you find people calling George Bush a moron tactlessly degrading, even though it's not very far off from the truth.

I see you are once again attempting to equalize political criticism, to religious criticism.
Despite your many failures in attempting to do that, or your failure to understand the two concepts are worlds apart, this arguement just wont work.

Politics is built on such ideas of criticism, its in a manner of speaking"How the game is played" its not good form or bad form...its politics.
Religion on the other hand does not operate on the same principles.

Originally Posted by Tony

Or is just that you think Religion should be immune to criticism. I find this very funny. No one care when people blast political pundits for the stupid things that come out of their mouth, but when religion is concerned, that's too touchy and your are automatically radical for pointing out the truth (That these people are retards and are fucking up the country/world).

Politics most fundemental priniciples were established on criticisms, or objections, the voice of others making a stance againts the establishment.

Do not equate religion and politics, thats beyond retarded.


Edit=Just wanted to add in a quote i remember from the john adams miniseries, the actual benfranklin never said this, but i like the quote nevertheless.

"I am an extreme moderate. I believe anyone not in favor of moderation and compromise should be castrated."
I'm thinking of sigging it.

[Insin]

Originally Posted by Tony

Dawkins has said time after time that he does not go out of his way to offend anyone.

Does he go out of his way not to offend people?

Stupid reasoning imo. Ridicule is a very powerful agent, specially when you have basis.

Rafcio already covered this well. Ridicule does not always promote understanding, it often leads to shame or spite. I would question the motive. Ridiculing people seems to imply that you are more interested in asserting the dominance of your belief, as opposed to spreading understanding and engaging in meaningful dialouge. In real life, I have had many conversations with theists. I am surrounded by them 24-7. And I never got anywhere with ridicule. In fact, I felt stupid when I did. But when I approached the situation with a certain amount of understanding and tact, I found the results to be meaningful. Of course you cannot convince people of anything, but having civil discussions with theists is in fact a rewarding experience from time to time. It gives me a chance to test the merit of my ideas, rethink certain problems in my ideology, and to help foster new ideas in others. Asserting my dominance or the superiority of my belief system is usually not my goal, so tactics like ridicule are usually meaningless to me. Even in absurd cases, all I usually have to do is point out the obvious and that's usually enough to illicit a response. When you have a rapport going, it's far easier to get others to understand your position, or even be more self critical. But when you insult and ridicule people, they get defensive and its hard to get anywhere.

Originally Posted by Rafcio

It's very similar to debates here. Sometimes when I got annoyed when arguing with people like Juno, Antioch, pschy lapre, or professional weskler I became extra sarcastic and snappy which had an inverse relationship with me getting their concessions, regardless of the quality of my actual arguments. On the other side I have seen Insin or Muken convince their opposition to concession more effectively by being more patient and tactful.

I appreciate the sentiment, but in my experience I have known you to be an objective and respectful debator.

Btw, thanks for the Tyson video. I've actually seen him before in scientific programs. He's an astrophysicist and a damn quirky one at that. But I enjoyed his segments on TV and this clip here is interesting. He put it well, so my respect for him grows.

[Apoo]

Originally Posted by Insin

Does he go out of his way not to offend people?

You still haven't told me what you find offensive about Dawkins. How does he go out of his way to offend anyone? (unless you are a creationist and are offended by the truth). I need examples, or else I have no reason to take your opinion of Dawkins very seriously.

Rafcio already covered this well. Ridicule does not always promote understanding, it often leads to shame or spite. I would question the motive. Ridiculing people seems to imply that you are more interested in asserting the dominance of your belief, as opposed to spreading understanding and engaging in meaningful dialouge. In real life, I have had many conversations with theists. I am surrounded by them 24-7. And I never got anywhere with ridicule. In fact, I felt stupid when I did. But when I approached the situation with a certain amount of understanding and tact, I found the results to be meaningful. Of course you cannot convince people of anything, but having civil discussions with theists is in fact a rewarding experience from time to time. It gives me a chance to test the merit of my ideas, rethink certain problems in my ideology, and to help foster new ideas in others. Asserting my dominance or the superiority of my belief system is usually not my goal, so tactics like ridicule are usually meaningless to me. Even in absurd cases, all I usually have to do is point out the obvious and that's usually enough to illicit a response. When you have a rapport going, it's far easier to get others to understand your position, or even be more self critical. But when you insult and ridicule people, they get defensive and its hard to get anywhere.

His target audience is people that are on the fence, not creationists. He has admitted that his writing style is not likely to persuade any hardcore creationists. His ridiculing of creationist ideas and what they do is not to be on the point where it becomes distasteful. He is rather witty and gifted in rhetoric. If I was on the fence, Dawkins would be very appealing to me. But then again that's my opinion.

You are trying to make Dawkins out to be an extremist who gets his point across by insulting people which is silly and untrue.

[Rafcio]

Tony, I don't remember what video I was getting it from, so I can't definitely say one way or another. I'll try finding it but I don't recommend holding your breath.
I'm pretty confident about it, although I do recall it being said somewhat jokingly which I guess makes it less significant.


Cane there's really no such thing as fanatical or moderate atheism. Perhaps fanatical or moderate anti theism, but even then this would largely be theoretical, and hardly applicable to real life examples.

The criticism of Dawkins in this discussion is on a relatively small level, where his strong convictions may arguably cause him to be counterproductive in his efforts of promoting science and reason, by being too harsh or offencive in his speeches.
This is a far cry from say, the extremism of parents not giving medication to their children because of religious beliefs, therefore your parallels of extremism of both is not warranted.

[Cane_The9lives]

From what i have heard dawkins say about moderate theism, i would assume he would call anything that doesnt blast religion as complete and utter nonsense, moderate athiesm.

And fanatical athiesm is prevelant in this world, we have a perfect example of one on this site.
if not fanatical, than atleast fanatical esq, since its a clear infatuation.

If someone who is full of religious misconceptions, constantly quite literally goes out of their way, to find somthing in which to critisicize any religion, or religion in general, i consider a religious fanatic, or athiest fanatic depending on what they indentify themselves as.