What Books Are We Reading?

[MDV]

An atheist cant, definitionally (with regard to any a/theological matter) be a fundamentalist. Theres no doctrine or teaching to adhere to, save simply not believing in any gods.

And yet Dawkins manages it...  I've seen him preach with a fervour that would put most US TV evangelists to shame...  To Dawkins, his believe system is science.  And he believes in that like a Catholic priest believes in... well...  Jamesons, probably.

I keep hearing this, but science is an epistemological methodology, not a set of beliefs. Dawkins knows that, and espouses demanding/finding reason to believe things, evidentially, not what to believe.

He does rail to varying degrees (seems to depend on his mood/talk show host as to whether youre mentally ill or just misguided) against supernatural beliefs, but his prime concern, I think, is the attempted (and disturbingly successfull/widely supported in the US at least; murmerings of it here) displacement of scientific discoveries with mythological nonsense in schools and government policy making - teaching what amounts to genesis in science classes, curtailing stem cell research because augustine of hippo reasoned that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, that sort of thing. 

I'm with him on that sort of stuff.

I'm not with him appearing on TV (this time in 'the genius of charles darwin') trying to tell us that we're all worthwhile because we're all "winners" because we have an unbroken chain of ancestry to the first self replicating organic molecule on the planet (i.e. we're all 'winners' because all our ancestors, obviously, got laid. Sound investigation into the nature of reality and skepticism of arbitrary claims of higher knowledge = good. Morally bankrupt self-worth placebos = bad).

P.S. Well done! There was a choir boy joke in there begging to be made; excellent restraint! :lol:

[dave_mc]

He does rail to varying degrees (seems to depend on his mood/talk show host as to whether youre mentally ill or just misguided) against supernatural beliefs, but his prime concern, I think, is the attempted (and disturbingly successfull/widely supported in the US at least; murmerings of it here) displacement of scientific discoveries with mythological nonsense in schools and government policy making - teaching what amounts to genesis in science classes, curtailing stem cell research because augustine of hippo reasoned that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, that sort of thing. 

agreed. you can believe what you like, as long as you're not doing harm to other people. and you have no right to force others to believe what you do.

[MDV]

He does rail to varying degrees (seems to depend on his mood/talk show host as to whether youre mentally ill or just misguided) against supernatural beliefs, but his prime concern, I think, is the attempted (and disturbingly successfull/widely supported in the US at least; murmerings of it here) displacement of scientific discoveries with mythological nonsense in schools and government policy making - teaching what amounts to genesis in science classes, curtailing stem cell research because augustine of hippo reasoned that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, that sort of thing. 

agreed. you can believe what you like, as long as you're not doing harm to other people. and you have no right to force others to believe what you do.

Quite.

But I would rather phrase it as "I dont want educational policy, morality or law to be dictated by your imaginary friend".

I would also prefer it if people didnt kill people because of the wishes of or on behalf of their imaginary friends, or go to war over whose imaginary friend has the biggest dick.

Maybe thats just me *shrugs*

[MrBump]

I would also prefer it if people didnt kill people because of the wishes of or on behalf of their imaginary friends, or go to war over whose imaginary friend has the biggest dick.

Maybe thats just me *shrugs*

It's just you, Mark - personally, I'll happily wage war on ANYONE with a bigger dick than me, and that's at least half the population...

[Philly Q]

But I would rather phrase it as "I dont want educational policy, morality or law to be dictated by your imaginary friend".

I would also prefer it if people didnt kill people because of the wishes of or on behalf of their imaginary friends, or go to war over whose imaginary friend has the biggest dick.

Exactly.

I basically, most of the time, think people should be free to believe whatever they like.  But when you get things like government policy, wars and acts of terrorism being driven by religion.... that's when I think "this is bullsh!t, $%&# your religious freedom, we'd be better off acknowledging it's all complete hogwash".  :|

[MDV]

I would also prefer it if people didnt kill people because of the wishes of or on behalf of their imaginary friends, or go to war over whose imaginary friend has the biggest dick.

Maybe thats just me *shrugs*

It's just you, Mark - personally, I'll happily wage war on ANYONE with a bigger dick than me, and that's at least half the population...

:lol:

Ah, but, how big is your imaginary friends dick?

On reflection, I dont think theres any possible good answer to that.

[MDV]

Why wont it let me quote? Loading...what exactly? How much can there possibly be to load?

Anyhow, yeah, philly, I agree 100%. I have many friends and family members that are christians and dont care that they think reality is something different than I do for different reasons than I do. Thats fine. Go ahead. Its of no importance so long as no one elevates the disagreements to anything more than verbal (and polite, civil and even jovial disagreement is the norm in my experience, and thats the way it should be) or unless one tries to force their beliefs, or practices that stem from their beliefs onto the other. Like, say, campaigning against condom distribution and safe sex education to teens and...I suppose the converse would be campaigning for teen sex :lol: Or mandatory abortions, or enforced working 16 hour sundays or obligatory blaspheming or something...you get the idea

The idea generally being that in a secular democratic, generally "free" society, religious people are able to practice their religion unhindered (except the slave-trading, genocidal parts: rather a lot of the bible is outlawed under the geneva convention) and everyone can go about their day without any superfluous or deontologically unjustified stonings. The converse is not true - in a society thats completely or even partially theocratic, non-believers get $%&#ed over.

[dave_mc]

^ yeah. however, i don't think even terrorism is a sufficiently good excuse to outlaw religion. Plenty of people can use religion "properly", it's not terribly fair to outlaw it because there are a few whackos. we don't do that with anything else. Ok, guns, knives, drugs, nuclear and biological weapons, but i disagree with that too. Not the nuclear and biological weapons, the other ones. (not trying to derail the thread or anything, just i know that if i don't mention that some other smart-alec will). For example, we don't outlaw cars because some people joyride, drive while drunk, or drive too quickly. And that kills far more people than terrorism does.

It's just you, Mark - personally, I'll happily wage war on ANYONE with a bigger dick than me, and that's at least half the population...

is it just me or does something not quite add up there? Either that or you know something we don't... o_O

[Philly Q]

^ yeah. however, i don't think even terrorism is a sufficiently good excuse to outlaw religion. Plenty of people can use religion "properly", it's not terribly fair to outlaw it because there are a few whackos. we don't do that with anything else.

I agree that we shouldn't outlaw religion (apart from anything else, outlawing it simply wouldn't work).  But it just seems odd that we haven't grown out of it by now.  :?


I have very mixed feelings about religion.  In past times, I'm sure it played a valuable part in bonding communities.  Personally, I had quite a religious upbringing, I'm glad I learned about the Bible because it's a wonderful book, regardless of any "deeper" significance.  I think most of the basic principles are sound (if you strip away the prejudice and fundamentalist mumbo jumbo).   I definitely still have deeply ingrained "Christian" moral values (for want of a better description).   I'm sure other religions are much the same.

But..... I don't believe in God.  I just don't.   And I can't see how anyone can.  When I watch some ceremony from St Paul's Cathedral, or a mosque, or whatever, it all seems so ludicrous.  How can anyone actually take it seriously?

[MrBump]

I basically, most of the time, think people should be free to believe whatever they like.  But when you get things like government policy, wars and acts of terrorism being driven by religion.... that's when I think "this is bullsh!t, $%&# your religious freedom, we'd be better off acknowledging it's all complete hogwash".  :|

I'm not so sure, PQ - I think that religion is a handy excuse, easy to categorise into good and bad, black and white, us and them (...and after all, we're only ordinary men... etc).  However, I think that MOST conflicts that we categorise as "religious" actually boil down land, poverty and oppression. 

Religion is a handy tag to use, but it's far less of a driver than hungry people.

(that's people who are hungry, by the way - not people from Hungary)

[_tom_]

I just started The Other Hand by Chris Cleave. I've heard its very good. Havent got far enough in to say yet.

[Sifu Ben]

I basically, most of the time, think people should be free to believe whatever they like.  But when you get things like government policy, wars and acts of terrorism being driven by religion.... that's when I think "this is bullsh!t, $%&# your religious freedom, we'd be better off acknowledging it's all complete hogwash".  :|

I'm not so sure, PQ - I think that religion is a handy excuse, easy to categorise into good and bad, black and white, us and them (...and after all, we're only ordinary men... etc).  However, I think that MOST conflicts that we categorise as "religious" actually boil down land, poverty and oppression. 

Religion is a handy tag to use, but it's far less of a driver than hungry people.

(that's people who are hungry, by the way - not people from Hungary)

Exactly, if you take the classic example of northern Ireland, religious divide was an easy way to label a complex ethno-cultural and historical division (although the historical divide did have religious aspects, in many ways these aspects were played up to support political agendas, another truth behind "religious" conflict).

[MDV]

Whos talking about outlawing religion?

That makes as much sense as outlawing the lord of the rings. Yeah, its not real, I think it sucks, it doesnt make a lick of sense and its dull as dishwater, but it doesnt bother me that other people like it.

I wonder, philly; we're agreeing a lot here. Seems we see things pretty much the same way: if we could make a film of this discussion, would we both like it :lol:

Yeah, how seriously some people take it is just bizarre, and the rituals and lingo and practices are surreal. I cant get my head around that they think thats what reality is. You may as well believe in unicorns and optimus prime as well.

On ostensibly religious conflicts being in fact sociopolitical - perhaps, but its rather immaterial. Religion is, if thats the case, used as a motivator for the common man. The guy that fires the RPG or pulls a stanley knife on the pilot of an airliner or shoots an abortion doctor doesnt care about increasing the political and military power of his worldly neocon puppet masters; he does it to because its what he believes his God wants.

[Philly Q]

I wonder, philly; we're agreeing a lot here. Seems we see things pretty much the same way: if we could make a film of this discussion, would we both like it :lol:

Nah, we'd never agree about the approach - you'd want Michael Bay and a load of explosions, I'd want a downbeat European arthouse style. 

[MDV]

Michael Bay?

Nah.

But I would want Darwin Vs Jesus - Survival of the Fittest (as the film would be called) to have ving rhames play jesus, christopher walken play darwin, vin diesel play dawkins and....lets see now....yes, anne hathaway as the love interest and robert downey jr as the mad scientist that makes a time machine that lets all the characters come together

And there would be eplosions.

And dinosaurs.

And aliens.