Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason And Science

[kipperthefrog]

Here people are complaining about the lack of reason in this country. Religios brainwashing videos on kids etc. I dont know if people know if this orginization exists, but here is a place to donate to if we want to do something about it. promote education, seperation church and state, etc...

 

richarddawkins.net

 

his in troductory video is gone, but you can find it on youtube.(at least part of it.) http://youtube.com/watch?v=bTbdvy5jIQw

 

All in all, spread the word. There is little chance he can be successfull, but we have to try.

[Nancy Allen``]

So what's this, a move to eliminate religion?

[kipperthefrog]

for reason and science

[Nancy Allen``]

With all due respect, and this has nothing to do with the current President, you will sooner see Washington's landmarks demolished and Muslim shrines built in their place than see religion abolished. It will never, ever happen no matter how big a following Atheism gets. Sorry, but they tried this in Russia and people still practiced religion, in secret, despite the threat of death if they were found out.

[Achilles]

Facist effort to repress religious expression is not the same thing as increasing scientific literacy and critical thinking skills.

 

P.S. The fact that the Brits feel obligated to stage an intervention should be a huge wake up call to moderates in this country.

[kipperthefrog]

glad you agree!

 

Nancy, This in NOT about removing religeon. its about defending seperation of church and state, keep creationism out of science classes, prevent theocracy etc.

 

people can still be free to believe what they like. They just want to defend people's right to be different. so they cant force their religeon on other faiths or the non religous.

[Achilles]

Based on what I've observed of Dawkins, I doubt that his intentions are to fortify a defense. I think he's probably trying to create a rallying point for atheists.

 

82% of Americans believe in God. Source

83% of Americans are scientifically illiterate. Source

 

I don't believe that's a coincidence. If more people were educated about the facts and viewed religion objectively, I think there'd be a lot more empty churches. Dawkins knows this too, but acknowledges that atheists (being "independent, free-thinkers" in his words) are difficult to organize. I think this is his attempt to turn that around.

[Spider AL]

Religion is delusion. Theistic beliefs are delusional beliefs.

 

People may have the right to hold such beliefs, but we don't have any moral responsibility to encourage them. And in fact, we have a moral responsibility to point out delusions wherever we find them. By encouraging reason, logic and critical thought worldwide, we would indirectly be decreasing the strangle-hold of delusional religion on the peoples of the world. But is that forcing religious folk to discard their beliefs? No. No use of force involved, physical, legal or otherwise. Furthermore holding a theistic belief is totally counter to logic, so frankly no amount of logic would EVER be able to remove that belief if the person in question didn't WANT it removed.

 

Those who fear the truth constantly wheel out the old fallacy that logic is EVIL because it FORCES people to discard their faith. But of course this is nonsense. Remember, we have a moral responsibility to speak the truth in all walks of life.

 

And we must choose: Try to make sense of the world and ourselves... or choose to believe in fairies, Santa Claus and gods.

 

(edit) Btw, great choice for a thread, Kipper. (/edit)

[Nancy Allen``]

Nancy, This in NOT about removing religeon. its about defending seperation of church and state, keep creationism out of science classes, prevent theocracy etc.

 

Ah, I thought you meant abolish religion for science and reason. Well if we're going to support reason we should strive against those who go on and on about hating religion 'oh religion offends me, it's illogical, it's immoral', this is exactly the type of bigotry we're meant to be fighting against.

[Achilles]

Nancy,

 

If you can stomach 20+ of opposing viewpoints (that's not a dig), then you might find this illuminating. If nothing else, it might help you to understand some of the arguments that you encounter here.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Ah, I thought you meant abolish religion for science and reason

So did I. I was like "WTF, Kipper?!";). Good to get that sorted out.

 

Either way, what Spider is saying is not that he wants to force people to not have religious beliefs, but that he wants people convinced they don't need religious beliefs. There's a big difference.

[Nancy Allen``]

I can understand, and even agree with, that there are many sections of religion that are very much in conflict with the world. For example homosexuality, do we kill all those who are gay? Then what, do we put to death those who murdered those people? Stem cell research, do we not allow that because of religion? For me both of those are wrong. And aside from that there are things, maybe worse things, that we do that threaten the sancity of our souls, and I admit to being guilty of this myself. Watching the video there's something else I have to say about modorate religion that I think was left out: modorate religion goes against what is said in scripture, in that everything that it says in there, to put to death all the nonbelievers, is how believers should be. However I think the question has to be asked whether or not there is action taken against religion and not only do we not allow freedom of speech by doing so we reap the bloody whirlwind that would come from taking action against people who have a right to religion, especially from those who are fundamentalist violent cases, or do we allow religion and work against the extreme cases who would commit acts such as bombing abortion clinics, hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, because their religion says that is what they have to do in order to be true believers? What percentage of religious folk would even contemplate such an act? What percentage have the common sense to be modorate?

[Achilles]

Watching the video there's something else I have to say about modorate religion that I think was left out: modorate religion goes against what is said in scripture, in that everything that it says in there, to put to death all the nonbelievers, is how believers should be.

Mr. Harris didn't get a chance to touch on this too much in his clip, but he discusses it at length in Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith. You and he (and I) are all in agreement but probably from differing ends of the spectrum.

 

Yes, moderates get it wrong. From a fundamentalist point of view, they aren't following the scriptures so they aren't really Believers. From a liberal point of view, they provide a sheild for fundamentalists, plus they don't follow the scriptures so they are kinda like pesky hypocrites. There needs to be a frank discussion about the nature of faith and the presense of moderates makes this kind of dialog very difficult.

 

Moderates feel that it's ok to pick and choose which tenets to live by. Fundies scoff at their willingness to cherry-pick and liberals are frustrated by their ability to completely miss the point of the debate (Harris does touch on this in the clip).

 

However I think the question has to be asked whether or not there is action taken against religion and not only do we not allow freedom of speech by doing so we reap the bloody whirlwind that would come from taking action against people who have a right to religion, especially from those who are fundamentalist violent cases, or do we allow religion and work against the extreme cases who would commit acts such as bombing abortion clinics, hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, because their religion says that is what they have to do in order to be true believers?

Wow, that's one heck of a run-on sentence

 

You seem to be stuck on this concept of "action". No one is advocating that we start burning Christians at the stake (at least I don't think that's the case). No is saying that we need to rally and drive them out of the country. What most "activists" (I use the term loosely) do try to inspire is a sense of urgency about the issue (the one that most moderates seem oblivious too).

 

Yes, people have a Constitutional right to freedom of religion. No one is debating that. The people need to be educated about the facts, maybe spend a little bit of time visiting a place that we like to call "reality", and give up their strangle-hold on Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and God (aka The Flying Spaghetti Monster).

 

You might not think that this is a big deal, but then again, I think it's important to point out that you appear to be one of those moderate people that we keep talking about.

 

What percentage have the common sense to be modorate?

I don't think being a Christian (Muslim/Jewish) moderate demonstrates a case of common sense at all. My 2 cents.

[Nancy Allen``]

It's a belief for people to hold onto, as opposed to something like 'The world is small, nasty, complicated and everyone dies alone'. I'm not sure about the common sense of people who follow religion, but it gives them some hope, something to build their dreams around.

 

As for taking action against religion, I've seen it happen, and I'd wager you have as well. Back in Soviet Russia they outlawed religion, tried to anyway, and more recently we have seen the intolerance of Islam, and sorry to bring this up but Muslim extremists have spoken of their intolerance for other religion. I'm sure Christianity, Jusism, ect do so as well but we've seen it in their voice and we've seen it in their acts, and there are those who believe it is their right to persecute those who follow religion, to take away their beliefs.

[Achilles]

Nancy,

 

I really feel as though you're still missing the point. The crisis that you're not recognizing is that the majority vote sits firmly with a bunch of people that base their beliefs off of what they think their shared imaginary friend wants. Go back to the Sam Harris video and listen to the part where he talks about the refrigerator-sized diamond in his back yard. Bush has the ability to kick-off a nuclear war any time he wants and believes that an invisible man in the sky talks to him. Doesn't this scare you even a little bit?

 

People can have dreams, hope, purpose, etc without religion. Religion isn't the sole source of these things and several profound arguments can be made for why religion is a terrible source.

 

Your continued use of the Russia strawman is not moving the dialog forward. Several people have pointed out several times that the objective is not to implement a fascist regime that has no tolerance for other people's beliefs. Bush has cornered that market anyway

 

So please, please, please leave this train of though alone. Nancy = 7, Strawman = 0. I promise.

[Nancy Allen``]

Okay, it's left alone. In terms of Bush saying that he's gone to war because God told him to, well sorry but that's a retarded thing for him to say. Maybe he did, I dunno, but this indicates maybe some type of religious fanaticism or at the very least outright stupidity in using his religion to justify going to war. I mean ****'s sake isn't that what we condemn Islam of, going to war because of their religious beliefs? Whether or not he scares me, excuse the digression here, one thing I will always remember was the idea was brought up immediately after September 11 to nuke Afghanistan, or whoever orchastrated the attack. I'm not sure if it was Bush himself who shot the idea down but he could have and he didn't. Just the same his continued support for waging war on Iraq, wanting to go to war with Iran, not doing anything about North Korea, I will say this: in the 2004 elections John Kerry lost the elections. Bush didn't win it, Kerry lost it. In my opinion on the heels of Iraq Bush shouldn't have won it but he did, God help the world, and perhaps the Democrats can make something of the situation now that they're in power, they haven't pulled the troops out and part of me is glad they didn't leave the Iraqis to die, and whoever they do put in (after Bush I'm hoping for Barack Obama) I think we will be glad to have them over Bush.

 

Getting back to the video, I forgot to mention about the use of condoms being a consider a sin. What? Well I supposed it says you're not allowed to have sex outside of marriage, and that presents another problem in that all these young unprepared couples are marrying as soon as they're allowed to so they can have sex. In either case it's an issue that needs to be addressed. But getting around, finally, to you asking about the refrigerator-sized diamond, a large part of religion does have to do with faith. But I think there's a lot more to it than simply saying that they believe it.

[Achilles]

Okay, it's left alone.

Thank you

In terms of Bush saying that he's gone to war because God told him to, well sorry but that's a retarded thing for him to say.

God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

 

Maybe he did, I dunno, but this indicates maybe some type of religious fanaticism or at the very least outright stupidity in using his religion to justify going to war.

Precisely.

What is your familiarity with Evangelical Christianity? Are you aware that Evangelical Christians believe that once Israel is returned to the Jews, Christ will return for Judgment Day? Considering that a majority of the policy makers in the Capital are Evangelical Christians, what impact do you think this has on little things like foreign policy, environmental issues, etc?

 

Are you starting to see why some people are very, very concerned about the amount of religiosity in the air?

 

I mean ****'s sake isn't that what we condemn Islam of, going to war because of their religious beliefs?

I think the word you're looking for here is "hypocrisy". The fact that Christian extremists are waging war against Islamic extremist for the crime of being extremists would be funny if it weren't so scary. This isn't to say that I think Christian extremists would fly planes into civilian buildings. But I do think they would invade a foreign country under false pretenses to further their time line for The Rapture.

 

Getting back to the video, I forgot to mention about the use of condoms being a consider a sin. What?

Contraception and Catholic Teaching

Contraception negates the creative act of God. It also compromises the unity of the relationship between the marriage partners. For these two reasons, fundamentally, the Church teaches that contraception is disordered and morally wrong.

(emphasis mine)

 

This one is just slightly off-topic, but interesting nonetheless:

Mommie Dearest

 

Well I supposed it says you're not allowed to have sex outside of marriage, and that presents another problem in that all these young unprepared couples are marrying as soon as they're allowed to so they can have sex.

Interesting point that I hadn't thought of before. Thanks for the insight.

 

Another way to look at it are all the families in Africa that are spreading AIDS within their families because they aren't using condoms (the WHO's recommended method for preventing transmission). Sex without condoms equals babies. Mommy with AIDS usually equals baby with AIDS. And since is culturally acceptable for husbands to have mistresses, a lot of other people outside the nuclear family are also at risk.

 

That's just Africa. We won't talk about India, Asia, or Latin America.

 

In either case it's an issue that needs to be addressed. But getting around, finally, to you asking about the refrigerator-sized diamond, a large part of religion does have to do with faith. But I think there's a lot more to it than simply saying that they believe it.

Ok, like what?

[Nancy Allen``]

My familiarity with Evangelical Christians is, what? It details the story of God creating the world, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, Abraham being led to believe in God (by proving his faith by sacrificing his son, no less), Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt, then being presented the Ten Commandments and carrying them in the Ark as they search for their land. Stories such as the battle of Jericho and David and Goliath would be in there somewhere, I think Jericho is right after Moses, and God casts judgement on the wicked. That's about as far as the Jewish believe I think. Then there's Jesus' life, death and resurrection, his apotles teaching his word and new churches being formed, then finally Revelations, it being God returning and the end of the world. Grim, but it's meant to be a good thing in terms of us being reborn to live with Christ. That basically covers the story of the Bible, aside from that there's problems within the church ranging from decrying Da Vinci Code to the very real problem of pedophiles in the church. The Roman Catholics have all the money and...excuse me here, they flaunt it. There may be other bits and pieces but that's a broad idea of my knowledge. With the idea of the Evangelical Christians believing that if the Jews return to their home Christ will return, I remember hearing that. There was something called Seven Signs of Christ's return that said that, the great Jewish pilgrimage. Does that mean all the Jews will just up and return to Israel? Given the turmoil there I can't see why they would, but given this idea I can understand the fear some would have. But if they are fearful of such an event in religion are they themselves buying into it? And do we limit the spread of religion hoping no one thinks of it or encourage it saying 'if you do this the world will end'?

 

By the way, the other signs I can remember is the reunification of superpowers, or the reunification of East and West Europe, which we are seeing. The creation of the ultimate weapon, the nuclear bomb. The antichrist, Hitler was the one they portrayed as being a likely canidate but some may, and probably have, argue that Bush would be a better canidate especially given the evidence of using technology to sway followers. I personally don't think so. The war to end all wars, the War on Terror is not it, this would be World War Three, or if you think we're in it already World War Four and we would be fighting China's one millions troops and the war will only end by armageddon scale weather conditions, read Day After Tomorrow type stuff. The last sign of copurse is Armageddon. Pretty scary stuff if you take it wholeheartedly.

 

With Iraq and the War on Terror, really put a lid on the religious angle. For me it's offensive to the religion whether you're Bush using God to wage war on all these countries or a terrorist saying you'll kill all these infidels in a terrorist act for Allah. Just go with the most basic and honest reason: that these people are killers and have to be stopped.

 

Hmmm, well this is going to sound silly, but going by my experiance with those who follow religion I would equate the experiance to something like a Jedi would feel when they feel the Force. I know, silly, but I'm thinking it's similar, especially given how it appears to be a religion. Mira puts it that it fills a hole, that in the Force, in religion, she feels that she no longer has to keep searching the galaxy for something and never finding it. Perhaps a better explanation would be...have you seen the new Spiderman trailer? It has Peter finding his father's real killer, and with a thirst for revenge something takes over his body, giving him enhanced powers. It feels good, apparently. I'd say because he has the power to get revenge. A dark emotion to feel, to be sure, but that type of feeling, one that hopefully you've rarely had a need to feel but something that's probably more familiar to you. As silly as it sounds I think that's the type of feeling people who believe in and follow religion have.

[Achilles]

Nancy,

 

There is no doubt that most people need a sense of purpose. Similarly, there is no doubt that humans have spiritual lives. The fact remains that religion is completely unnecessary for either of these. The goosebumpy thing I get when watching a sunrise or watching my children sleep has nothing to do with God. The fact that a lot of people attribute that to Him doesn't mean that's really where it comes from. The sooner we can all recognize that our purpose comes from within, the better off our species will be.

[Nancy Allen``]

I would argue that religion can give people a new found purpose in life. An example would be someone who had been retrenched, tries and tries to find work but no one's interested, and despite the best efforts of family and friends they fall into depression. Or someone who has been in hospital for a long time, same thing. Religion can be used to give them the strength to move on.

[Achilles]

I agree that this does happen, but it's essentially a false sense of purpose. In the examples that you're providing, religion is nothing more than a placebo. God isn't really there, so where is this strength coming from? It's coming from within themselves.

 

Since you like analogies, think back to the Disney movie Dumbo. Dumbo believed that he needed the magic feather to fly, but the reality was he could fly all along. You would probably argue, "well if people want to believe in the magic feather, who are they hurting?". Of course, I would have to point out that this question has already been answered for you several times.

 

Attributing our purpose to God robs us of our power to find our own meaning.

[Nancy Allen``]

By the same token, where does our responsibility for others end? Do we tell them to quit smoking because it's bad for their health? They should diet and exercise? That the film and television they watch is not the right mix of what they need for balenced viewing?

[Achilles]

This is a red herring, Nancy.

[Nancy Allen``]

Oh? How so?

[Achilles]

Red herring

 

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

 

• Topic A is under discussion.

• Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

• Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

 

Example: my post followed by your post