Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[Castiel]

He stood in line, collected a cracker and instead of putting it in his mouth , he walked away with it in his hand. He now has a criminal record.

Yeah I say there's been a huge overreaction.

You now appear to be combining two different stories into one.

The student in the first has not been charged with any offence at all, and is holding The Eucharist in some sort of protest against whatever he is protesting about, people donating to the Church it seems, so there is enough overreaction to go around it seems...

The second man was charged with Battery, Theft and Disrupting a Church Service...again the charges have nothing to do with the Eucharist, but the video evidence of a previous theft from the altar, assaulting the Priest and another Parishioner and the disruption caused....he broke the law and has to answer for that, I see no overreaction from that perspective.

Neither story really supports your original claim though.

 

[wickfut]

You now appear to be combining two different stories into one.

The student in the first has not been charged with any offence at all, and is holding The Eucharist in some sort of protest against whatever he is protesting about....the second man was charged with Battery, Theft and Disrupting a Church Service...again the charges have nothing to do with the Eucharist, but the video evidence of a theft from the alter.

Are you sure? There was a thread about it on another forum a while back. I'm quite positive that a follow up link surfaced with the man being charged for something or other. It was an atheist forum which had links to a religious page where people were making petitions to have him charged with kidnap. It also had various links to news sites showing follow ups.

Maybe you're right though, I have just skipped through them without reading it all. Maybe they dropped the charges afterall?

 

[Castiel]

Are you sure? There was a thread about it on another forum a while back. I'm quite positive that a follow up link surfaced with the man being charged for something or other. It was an atheist forum which had links to a religious page where people were making petitions to have him charged with kidnap. It also had various links to news sites showing follow ups.

Maybe you're right though, I have just skipped through them without reading it all. Maybe they dropped the charges afterall?

It doesn't matter, I readily accept that some people will do and say some pretty stupid things in reverence to their beliefs. It's not limited to religion either.

 

[Zethor]

No we are not creating any equivalence false or otherwise, neither do your reductio ad absurdum examples impress or alter the discussion.....but believe whatever makes you happy in your own skin Zethor, you are quite free to think people are idiots simply for believing something different from you, just as they are free to think the same of you.

That would actually be brilliant, I have no problem with being called an idiot when other people think I deserve it or with calling other people idiots when I think they deserve it. The problem is there are many people who think religious views are somehow "special", they are extempt from scrutiny, criticism and mockery. Dawkings simply treats religious ideas in the same manner he would any other ridiculous claims so why exactly is he a "nutjob", a statement you agreed with?

Just a side question, out of interest....Do you believe that the events at the Biblical Wedding at Cana were literal and that that most Christians actually believe in the literal Water turning into Wine? Do you have enough objective understanding and knowledge of both the theology and the individual expressing an adherence to Christianity to judge whether a person is an idiot based on what you assume they believe?

(You might want to sort out your quotations, referencing the people you are quoting is only polite after all.)

I suspect that most Christians (even the devout ones) don't believe in a literal interpretation of the stories in the Bible. They have personal views and they draw a line somewhere along those stories: on one side of the line they see devine intervention, on the other, they see metaphors. Some draw the line right at the beginning (God, the First Cause and an allegory, the rest) others go as far as the murky waters of fundamentalism and consider it all "God's word".

I believe they are all equally idiotic (with the note that fundamentalists are dangerous too) because the mad ramblings of middle eastern nomads spoken/written a few thousands years ago do not represent a good foundation for a system of belief. It doesn't matter where you draw the line, it's all made up and there's no real reason to think otherwise.

There's also a sizeable group of Christians that are actually agnostic/atheist but they continue to consider/describe themselves as Christian for social reasons, respect for family/traditions etc. I don't consider this last group to consist of idiots although I'm not impressed with the agnostics.

 

[Gilly]

I thought these threads were banned in case we upset the "believers"?

Don't be daft

 

[Castiel]

That would actually be brilliant, I have no problem with being called an idiot when other people think I deserve it or with calling other people idiots when I think they deserve it. The problem is there are many people who think religious views are somehow "special", they are extempt from scrutiny, criticism and mockery. Dawkings simply treats religious ideas in the same manner he would any other ridiculous claims so why exactly is he a "nutjob", a statement you agreed with?

I don't think he is as 'nutjob'..I think he often gets carried away and in discussions with him he is quite normal, but his frustrations get the better of him and the older he gets the worse he gets. Unfortunately Dawkins doesn't really understand much of the stuff he is critical off...but when he is opposite an equally informed Christian such as the former ArchBishop of Canterbury or Chief Rabbi Sachs, he is far less inclined to vehemence and evangelism of his own ideology. Therein I agree with Xordium's statement, in which he expressed Dawkins own evangelistic nature and the associations it creates with those he calls 'nut jobs'...the two groups are more alike than they care to admit.

I suspect that most Christians (even the devout ones) don't believe in a literal interpretation of the stories in the Bible. They have personal views and they draw a line somewhere along those stories: on one side of the line they see devine intervention, on the other, they see metaphors. Some draw the line right at the beginning (God, the First Cause and an allegory, the rest) others go as far as the murky waters of fundamentalism and consider it all "God's word".

That's a reasonable assumption.

I believe they are all equally idiotic (with the note that fundamentalists are dangerous too) because the mad ramblings of middle eastern nomads spoken/written a few thousands years ago do not represent a good foundation for a system of belief. It doesn't matter where you draw the line, it's all made up and there's no real reason to think otherwise.

That presupposes that Christian Theology is the 'mad ramblings' of crazy middle Eastern nomads...which it isn't....but you are free to believe such and free to believe its all stupid and everyone who believes in it or lives their lives according to its teachings is a loony.

There's also a sizeable group of Christians that are actually agnostic/atheist but they continue to consider/describe themselves as Christian for social reasons, respect for family/traditions etc. I don't consider this last group to consist of idiots although I'm not impressed with the agnostics.

So, basically unless you are an atheist...in the definition that a God doesn't exist as a definitive...then they are idiots or at the minimum you're not impressed by them (and I suppose by association, are idiots as well?)

Hmmm. That's an awful lot of idiots and those associated with idiots....

 

[zenf]

So, basically unless you are an atheist...in the definition that a God doesn't exist as a definitive...then they are idiots or at the minimum you're not impressed by them (and I suppose by association, are idiots as well?)

Hmmm. That's an awful lot of idiots.

Since when was that the definition of an atheist?

atheist
/ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Not believing that a God exists, or not seeing any reason to believe a God exists, is different to definitively asserting a God does not exist... No one can definitively say whether or not a God exists, obviously.

agnostic
/agˈnɒstɪk/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

I don't see why someone couldn't be both an atheist and an agnostic, they're not mutually exclusive. I think I know what Zethor means though when he says he's not impressed by agnostics... If they believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God, then surely they have no reason to believe a God exists. If, therefore, they lack belief in a God, they're an atheist.

 

[antijoke]

All this talk of Jesus and followers sounds just like Twitter.

So Jesus was/is Twitter.

 

[D.P.]

Since when was that the definition of an atheist?

atheist
/ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Not believing that a God exists, or not seeing any reason to believe a God exists, is different to definitively asserting a God does not exist... No one can definitively say whether or not a God exists, obviously.

agnostic
/agˈnɒstɪk/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

I don't see why someone couldn't be both an atheist and an agnostic, they're not mutually exclusive. I think I know what Zethor means though when he says he's not impressed by agnostics... If they believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God, then surely they have no reason to believe a God exists. If, therefore, they lack belief in a God, they're an atheist.

This a hundred times over. It is infuriating the number of people that don't know what an atheist actually is!

Athiesim is a lack of belief either way, not the certainty that there is no God. We don't know if there is a giant pink elephant hiding in the galaxy, because there is no evidence for such an absurdity and there is no reason for one to be there thus we can assume the probability is very low, until such time as evidence arises to proove it's existence. Moreover, the existence of a giant pink elephant has seemingly no effect on our lives or world we live in so it doesn't really matter at this point in time. But this isn't a definitive assertion that it doesn't exist!

If you are a Theist then you have 100% belief in something there is no evidence for. The belief in God is identical to the belief in the giant Pink elephant, and infinitely many other concepts that can be imagined. An atheist has no belief on any of the infinitely imaginable concepts until such time as there is evidence to support the belief.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Most theists can't even agree on what God is, let alone provide evidence of one. That and over 3000 sub groups of Christianity. Crazy stuff.

 

[Zethor]

That presupposes that Christian Theology is the 'mad ramblings' of crazy middle Eastern nomads...which it isn't....but you are free to believe such and free to believe its all stupid and everyone who believes in it or lives their lives according to its teachings is a loony.

I've never said the stories or the teachings are stupid. It's fine if you adhere to the teachings but you're an idiot if you believe a divine being is the source material. Thou shalt not kill is a good suggestion, you don't need a system of belief to listen to it.

So, basically unless you are an atheist...in the definition that a God doesn't exist as a definitive...then they are idiots or at the minimum you're not impressed by them (and I suppose by association, are idiots as well?)

If you believe God exists, you're an idiot in my book. If you're not sure or consider that the question cannot be answered, I'm simply not impressed for several reasons that are not the topic here. If I considered agnostics idiots, I would say so.

Hmmm. That's an awful lot of idiots and those associated with idiots....

You sound old enough to not be suprised by the fact that there's an abundance of idiots in the world. Besides, I'm not saying they are all-round, hopeless idiots with no chance of recovery, they are mostly victims of the culture in which they grew up.

 

[Castiel]

Since when was that the definition of an atheist.

In the narrower definition used by many people when expressing the same opinions as seen here (as in There are no Deities as expressed in the definitive)...that is why I specifically stated such as I am fully aware of the various definitions now expressed regarding Atheism...including g that of a simple active position of an absence of belief.

And no...an Agnostic is not necessarily an Atheist...as the position of Atheism requires an active assumption of the position of absence of belief. I am an Agnostic as I neither have an active assumption on whether a Deity exists or does not exist....a little like Schrödingers thought experiment...God could either exist nor not..I have no active position on it, I neither express an active belief or an active disbelief..that is not Atheism as Atheism in its most common form would necessitate an active position regarding belief (not regarding the existence of God)

However, Zethor is expressing the position that you MUST be an idiot to believe in God, thus God definitively doesn't exist...therefore the reason for the inclusion of the statement and clarification, strangely to ensure this kind of pointless circular argument over how people define their beliefs or lack of them didn't happen as it is tedious and has been covered thousands of times.

This a hundred times over. It is infuriating the number of people that don't know what an atheist actually is!

However, still people express their Atheism in such definitive terms. We see it in this thread...

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Gnosticism refers to knowledge, Theist refers to belief. Not the same thing.

 

[elmarko]

Indeed,

It's quite simple - regardless of the semantics involved a number of positions exist.

We have weak/strong - positive/negative atheism.

A person may never have heard of the concept of a god, so you can't call them a theist - they are an atheist in the sense they lack belief in a god/gods - they are implicit atheists (atheists as a result of circumstance, not a concious rejection of the idea).

An explicit atheist has considered the idea & has rejected it - which may or may not involve proposing it's impossible with a degree of certainty - all the way to simply rejecting the assertion (for most due to a lack of evidence) - this is where the strong/weak distinctions come in.

A 'strong' atheist asserts no god exists, a 'weak' atheist rejects the assertion a god exists - but makes no counter assertions.

Agnosticism concerns knowledge, so can be compatible with any of the above - you can believe or not believe in a deity & still not think it's knowable for certain.

Myself, I'm an explicit/weak/agnostic/atheist.

I reject the idea of the god/gods due to lack of evidence, I present no counter claim & do not believe it's knowable due to the concept being unverifiable/proclaimed to exist outside of the realms of science (this response is based on the popular definition of a god/gods, many differences exist which my response to each may be different).

Now, if personally you don't like the terminology I'm using then fair enough - but actually read the underline attributes of these statements & apply whatever term you like, I can define what I believe without using these terms either way - but you can easily see how it doesn't fit into the standard false dichotomy presented by many that you either have a belief in a god, or a belief that god doesn't exist (which is simply wrong).

 

[Castiel]

If you believe God exists, you're an idiot in my book. If you're not sure or consider that the question cannot be answered, I'm simply not impressed for several reasons that are not the topic here. If I considered agnostics idiots, I would say so.

So you assert that God definitively doesn't exist..that is your position. There is NO God...end of?

 

[Castiel]

A person may never have heard of the concept of a god, so you can't call them a theist - they are an atheist in the sense they lack belief in a god/gods - they are implicit atheists (atheists as a result of circumstance, not a concious rejection of the idea)

And here we go.....

There is no active position, no knowledge involved to make an assertion of a philosophical position..therefore they are neither Theist or Atheist. First you must explain the concepts to the individual for them to determine whether they have or lack a belief. Both require an active participation of the observer...you cannot determine it for them.

For example, if you ask one whether they are a Theist or an Atheist..they are going to ask..what is a Theist/Atheist? Only then can you determine whether they are one or the other, because they may well believe in a deity (or not), but simply have no way of expressing that emotion or belief in any meaningful way until it is explained to them. They simply have no belief or disbelief. Atheism, like its antithesis Theism is an active position, it requires the participation of the individual.

You are free to define your beliefs however you wish, of course, whether through the myriad of differing definitions of Atheism/Agnosticism/Theism/Deism and so on (to those more versed in philosophy I am an Ignostic for example)...but the device to include those who have yet to express their own position into one camp or another is flawed. In my opinion. I largely agree with everything else you said...I dislike labels also as they restrict you and create pointless circular arguments like this one...

This begun because I was trying to determine whether Zethor held that his Atheism is defined by the definitive belief that there are no deities (assumed by is belief that anyone who does belief is an idiot)...a definition which I think, most will agree is not what most Atheists would say was the commonly held position.

 

[m4rk84]

So you assert that God definitively doesn't exist..that is your position. There is NO God...end of?

You're arguing semantics and nitpicking, you know full well both atheists and people of an agnostic position will never commit 100% to that statement they are never that close minded. Plenty are probably 99.9%+ sure no form of a god exists though.

Personally I'm 100% sure all descendent religions and followings of the "Yahweh" god are completely fictitious. I feel there is plenty of catalogued evidence in favour of this position.

Could there have been a supreme thing that created the universe? It's possible but unlikely. Would it be anything like the gods that are worshipped in religions of today? absolutely not.

 

[elmarko]

And here we go.....

There is no active position, no knowledge involved to make an assertion of a philosophical position..therefore they are neither Theist or Atheist. First you must explain the concepts to the individual for them to determine whether they have or lack a belief. Both require an active participation of the observer...you cannot determine it for them.

Ifor example, if you ask one whether they are a Theist or an Atheist..they are going to ask..what is a Theist/Atheist? Only then can you determine whether they are one or the other, because they may well believe in a deity (or not), but simply have no way of expressing that emotion in any meaningful way until it is explained to them.

You are free to define your beliefs however you wish, of course...but the device to include those who have yet to express their own position into one camp or another is flawed.

Implicit atheism is it's own section, a term used to describe people who have not yet come across the concept.

It's not 'putting somebody into a camp' as the camp essentially means nothing (but is a distinction required as it's not correct to bundle people who have never heard of a god in the same category as those who have rejected one) - ironically the very thing you seem against.

Saying somebody is an implicit atheist says nothing about them other than that have not come across the idea of the god - they lack any beliefs but not as a result of a concious decision.

I agree the term is mostly unneeded, but you seem to be implying it's an attempt to pigeon-hole people, when in reality it's just a descriptive term for a group who is unfamiliar with the concept (with the express purpose of not putting them into any camp) - the problem is people instantly jump the gun & assume that lacking a belief (which can be for many reasons - atheism, implies a rejection of belief) - which it doesn't - that's what explicit atheism is.

I agree the labels are pointless & can totally understand your dislike for them, but the only reason many who reject the idea of god feel the need to express them is as a result of people telling us what we believe using the fixed "believe in god, or believe that god doesn't exist dichotomy" is my own personal desire to not be mislabelled by theists which drives this tiresome semantic conversation.

If I could, I've avoid the use of any of these terms - but when people tell me I claim to know god does not exist, that I hate god or that I hold a belief that god doesn't exist, I need to correct these false assertions.

 

[Castiel]

Implicit atheism is it's own section, a term used to describe people who have not yet come across the concept.

Unfortunately the term coined relatively recently by George Smith is largely rejected by most philosophers as a device to make Atheism universally inclusive and replace the term Agnosticism. You are free to use it, but it is a controversial and very hotly debated term and that should be pointed out.

The default position..if there is one..is, or should remain simply agnosticism...the lack of any active position..as agnosticism deals with knowledge (or the lack thereof) that seems to be a more appropriate term when discussing people who have no prior knowledge with which to assert their belief or lack thereof.

If I could, I've avoid the use of any of these terms - but when people tell me I claim to know god does not exist, that I hate god or that I hold a belief that god doesn't exist, I need to correct these false assertions.

Zethor does appear to be claiming to know God doesn't exist...it is that which I am trying to clarify.


Anyway, can we move on...I dislike these discussions on semantics as they rarely illicit anything we don't know already or offer anything interesting to discuss that we haven't discussed over and again before.

 

[Castiel]

You're arguing semantics and nitpicking, you know full well both atheists and people of an agnostic position will never commit 100% to that statement they are never that close minded. Plenty are probably 99.9%+ sure no form of a god exists though.

Actually I'm trying to determine how Zethor arrives at his own conclusions regarding the beliefs of others and his judgement of them...I am well aware of how others define themselves...I am just interested in how Zethor can be so sure anyone who believes in God is an idiot...regardless of how they determined that belief themselves. This implies an absolute, definitive position which is fundamental to our discussion, therefore the question asking for clarification.