1. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #180013 by IQHQ on May 14, 2008 at 5:33 am

Irate

Look, i must apologize for being a little rude to you in my response.

I am a court lawyer by profession, and I deal in matters of "evidence" every day... so, like you, I know how important it is not to make unsubstantiated remarks.

Likewise, I admit that it's possible that someone like Brooke (who has affiliation with Templeton) could very well "make up" something like this. Nevertheless, don't you think that it is highly unlikely??? As with science, there is a peer-review system (albeit an informal one) in literature. Without evidence, the making of such assertions would soon result in his disgrace.

Therefore, I just got a bit annoyed that you couldn't respond to the substance of my point by simply taking it on a hypothetical at the very least. Anyway, no sweat. C ya.

p.s:~ check out the Isaacson book.. it's pretty good, especially so for the letters

2. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179477 by IQHQ on May 13, 2008 at 10:08 am

Get your head out of your arse, Irate....

Walter Isaacson, in his recent biography on Einstein, makes this point quite explicit, citing several letters to prove it.

And anyway, before you get up on your high horse, do you honestly believe that Brooke, a fellow biographer, would just casually attribute false perspectives to the great man, and what's more do so without a shred of proof?

Get real, and stop being such a bore (Evidence! I demand evidence! Evidence!!!)

3. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179346 by IQHQ on May 13, 2008 at 6:28 am

If any of you are to appropriate Einstein's authority in relation to how childish a belief in a "personal" God may be (quite rightly), you nevertheless must pay heed to what the great man also said about "evangelical atheism".

Giving these latter considerations honest consideration may only result in a modification of tone and temper (as opposed to substance), but nevertheless they are important considerations, and worth taking into account.

4. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82083 by IQHQ on October 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Kelly

Oh, so that's how this all started? You were annoyed that more people didn't like you?

lol... please excuse me, that is very harsh and unwarranted....

Nevertheless, I have to agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster, Amanda Marie. To me, I detect at least a hint of "irrationality" in your attachment to "rationality". I am quite sure we agree (at least in principle) on most of the issues that you campaign on. Yet, to put oneself forward as a spokesperson for "reason", one must not simply attach themselves to what is seen to be the "reasonable" position on any given issue, but actually demonstrate through one's advocacy a "reasonable" way of thinking, acting, etc. The people to whom you may wish to influence will not serve reason by simply accepting your positions on a list of issues, such as evolutionary theory, religious belief, separation of church and state, etc. Folk can become attached to ANY opinion in a dogmatic way, and this may have little to do with the veracity of that perspective. What they need is a role model...

Of the RSS members whom I have seen debate, it is you in particular from whom I have seen the least evidence of this all important "way of thinking"... In particular, your easy-pickings debate with that nutjob ex-actor Creationist, chaired by Bashir, was quite disappointing.... I'm sorry that I am being so offensive, and so public with that offence, yet you've already claimed (in the last line of your post) to be impervious to the opinions of others, so I feel free to criticize. In the aforementioned debate, you were disappointing, not for the positions you held, but rather in the way your demeanour and tone (perhaps caused by nerves) betrayed your toxic emotions on the issue. also, there were some interesting portents into the "way you think", and to be quite frank, what I noticed was FAR from a model method.

And all this is fine, of course. Not all can be Einstein-like geniuses... not all can be Cicero-like Orators... I would not begin to presume what original experiences lie behind what I perceive as a deeply-ingrained bitterness about religion... perhaps in your own emotional life, you have good cause to be bitter! But, personally, I do not believe that this makes for a healthy contribution to the movement. Where a message IS communicated, I fear it will have an adverse effect. Sorry, but that is my opinion, and I am confident that in the Voltaire-esque tradition of Free Speech which we both cherish you will reply:

"I hate what you have to say, but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

If I was right in giving you the benefit of the doubt in this respect, I thank you in advance.

p.s:~ i still think you're pretty hot ;-)

5. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82082 by IQHQ on October 25, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Kelly

Oh, so that's how this all started? You were annoyed that more people didn't like you?

lol... please excuse me, that is very harsh and unwarranted....

Nevertheless, I have to agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster, Amanda Marie. To me, I detect at least a hint of "irrationality" in your attachment to "rationality". I am quite sure we agree (at least in principle) on most of the issues that you campaign on. Yet, to put oneself forward as a spokesperson for "reason", one must not simply attach themselves to what is seen to be the "reasonable" position on any given issue, but actually demonstrate through one's advocacy a "reasonable" way of thinking, acting, etc. The people to whom you may wish to influence will not serve reason by simply accepting your positions on a list of issues, such as evolutionary theory, religious belief, separation of church and state, etc. Folk can become attached to ANY opinion in a dogmatic way, and this may have little to do with the veracity of that perspective. What they need is a role model...

Of the RSS members whom I have seen debate, it is you in particular from whom I have seen the least evidence of this all important "way of thinking"... In particular, your easy-pickings debate with that nutjob ex-actor Creationist, chaired by Bashir, was quite disappointing.... I'm sorry that I am being so offensive, and so public with that offence, yet you've already claimed (in the last line of your post) to be impervious to the opinions of others, so I feel free to criticize. In the aforementioned debate, you were disappointing, not for the positions you held, but rather in the way your demeanour and tone (perhaps caused by nerves) betrayed your toxic emotions on the issue. also, there were some interesting portents into the "way you think", and to be quite frank, what I noticed was FAR from a model method.

And all this is fine, of course. Not all can be Einstein-like geniuses... not all can be Cicero-like Orators... I would not begin to presume what original experiences lie behind what I perceive as a deeply-ingrained bitterness about religion... perhaps in your own emotional life, you have good cause to be bitter! But, personally, I do not believe that this makes for a healthy contribution to the movement. Where a message IS communicated, I fear it will have an adverse effect. Sorry, but that is my opinion, and I am confident that in the Voltaire-esque tradition of Free Speech which we both cherish you will reply:

"I hate what you have to say, but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

If I was right in giving you the benefit of the doubt in this respect, I thank you in advance.

p.s:~ i still think you're pretty hot ;-)

6. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63196 by IQHQ on August 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Lauregon

Good points. To me, God is a metaphor, a metaphor which transcends ALL categories of thought. I agree that those who view, for example, Christianity, as TRUE, in the scientific, materialistic sense, need to be challenged on the foundations of their beliefs, and that this should not be allowed to remain taboo. Part of "growing up" is to recognise myths AS myths. And yet so many remain caught in that symbiotic relationship with nature, in which their psyches are entangled. Incidentally, I just finished watching "The Enemies of Reason", and it provided ample proof of this phenomenon. Professor Dawkins did an admirable job of portraying these superstitions for what they really are.

7. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63129 by IQHQ on August 13, 2007 at 7:36 am

Cartomancer

Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to write it. There is much of what you say that I agree with. I am not arguing that it is theoretically impossible to conceive of (or produce) great art from the basis of a secular and non-religious framework, just that (considering how much more access everyone has, today, to the means of producing art) there is a notable lack of it around! One must look at this question, for it may yield some interesting lessons about the inspiration derived from religious fables. You said:

"Similarly, we admire Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling not because it contains pictures of childish religious fable but because he too was adopting a classicising, realistic and impressive artistic technique. It could have been the flying spaghetti monster surrounded by invisible goblins on roller-skates up there and it would have been no less impressive".

I totally disagree with that statement. It is precisely the cosmic theme of Heaven and Hell, the all-encompassing reach and the personal moral lesson (albeit still mythically-grounded) enshrined in that artwork which makes it timeless, over and above just a great arrangement of colour and shape. The modern artwork of, for example, Alexander Gray, whilst being visionary and ingenious, nevertheless lacks this same "eternal" resonance. To my mind it does, at least. If the Sistine Chapel really had been dedicated to the mocking of religion (e.g. the Spagetti Monster or the Flying Teapot) I believe that experiencing it would almost certainly lack that transcendental quality, vivid and undeniable concerning the Sistine chapel as it is today.

8. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63106 by IQHQ on August 13, 2007 at 5:59 am

A very interesting discussion. I thought that it was respectfully conducted, and yielded much food for thought.

David Allen White, to me, came across as a man of integrity and moral virtue. He made some salient points. Yet, it seems to me that where religious people fall down is when they try to assert the "truth" of their dogmas and beliefs. It always seems that they fall back on the mythical import from the holy stories.

To address this important issue: I do not think that there is any debate as to whether religious belief has inspired some of the greatest art of all time. I cannot really conceive of a modern-day secularist creating a vision such is contained in "The Divine Comedy" or the music of Bach. I tend to think that this is because the key to artistic creativity is "imagination", and it is exactly this "imagination" which is most inspired by the mythical import of religious stories. People in modern day secular countries have lost their "heroes", so to speak. Therefore, I think David Allen White's concern about the neglect of the "inner life" is justified, although I hardly believe (as he does) that his myths represent physical reality. I guess though, that they still may be described as "true", at least if the world "true" is defined broadly. There is a "truth" in the St Mathew Passion, for example, which resonates as such in the ears of us human beings every bit as much as a "truth" describing physical reality, perhaps even more so, as it is of much more immediate and personal significance.

9. Interview with Michael Behe

Comment #61106 by IQHQ on August 3, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Thanks, fallenone... "simply brilliant" just about sums it up!

As regards to the above interview, whilst Behe's ideas may be ludicrous I think he came across as a very likeable guy. Not that this has any real relevance here, of course... just an observation.

10. Are antidepressants taking the edge off love?

Comment #60630 by IQHQ on August 2, 2007 at 2:13 pm

scottbly

Thank you for your reply. I don't actually take the things, but know someone who does. Anyway, thanks.

11. Are antidepressants taking the edge off love?

Comment #60600 by IQHQ on August 2, 2007 at 11:36 am

To those of you who have read about this topic, a question:

I'm aware that scientific enquiry into such issues is at an early stage, but does anyone know if there are any thoughts about "permanent" side effects? That is, if one was to be on such medication and felt that it was inhibiting their natural sexual (or romantic) impulses, could they remedy the situation by simply coming off the medication, and thus return to normal? Or are the effects more than likely of a permanent nature?

Thanks in advance.

12. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #60544 by IQHQ on August 2, 2007 at 7:26 am

newatheist

I clearly did. thanks for your post, it's given me much food for thought, especially your pointed and relevant quotation from the Professor.

When posting, I assumed that you'd take it for granted that I wanted to control the bad effects of religion. As a secualr atheist myself, how could it be otherwise? Yet, I feel that many of the mooted suggestions on this site (relating to how best to do this) may prove counter-productive (some are outright disgusting, and virtually no criticism attaches to these suggestions, as they immediately would if the shoe was on the other foot).

Yet, my approach to Atheism is still evolving, and (due to your direction) I take enormous comfort from the "Converts' Corner" section of this website. Perhaps my gloomy apocalyptic vision of a post-religious world were grossly over-stated, and (due to your post and many others I have read in recent weeks) I have started to adopt a more uncompromising approach to such matters. Like someone said, we will always have the deterrent effects of the Criminal Law to deal with those who do react adversely to the "Death of God". This, coupled with our innate moral instinct (and fleeting understanding of such moral principles as Universalism, the "Golden Rule" and the "Social Contract") should suffice in the future.

I am happy that you concede that religion is "ineradicable", and would hope that during the course of our efforts as part of this new movement, we take one lesson from the Christian theological canon, that is... "separate the sin from the sinner" - be mindful of how an attack on religious dogma and creed can easily be perceived as a veiled personal attack, and therefore take an approach that pays due respect to the PERSON who holds such fantastic beliefs. I see far too little of this on these threads, and whilst it is unrealistic to expect every single atheist to conduct themselves with the utmost in circumspection, nevertheless this (i feel) is what we should be aiming for.

(However, I happily admit and concede that some of my previous posts on this site have been far TOO apologetic (read: sitting on the fence). Now that my ass is starting to hurt, and am forced to jump off, i think you can guess which side I will be leaping for. And trust me newatheist, it won't be a "leap of faith" ;-)

13. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60363 by IQHQ on August 1, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Bergson

LOL - great analogy... i'm neither a teenager, nor a homosexual, though i'm still flattered!

Though, I suppose being an Irish lawyer, i'm more like the Prosecution side of the Wilde trial (Edward Carson QC)

14. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60165 by IQHQ on August 1, 2007 at 7:52 am

Yorker

How kind! Thank you! Don't worry, i'll enjoy it.

And, about that "enemy" tripe you're spewing, you let yourself down. Not that I expect any class from you, the way you've acted on this thread, but really... enemy? on an internet forum? lol... delusions of grandeur more like.

What exactly are you going to do? lol...


.... yeah, didn't think so . . . C ya! :)

15. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60142 by IQHQ on August 1, 2007 at 5:59 am

Yorker

I replied (against my better judgement) because you called my analogy "irrelevant", when it quite clearly wasn't. I guess I also replied because I still hadn't lost faith that you'd address the point I made, rather than make light of it.

lol... re: the vulgar wank comment, you seem to think i'm sitting here getting all hot and bothered about your comments. Not at all. I just want (and have wanted throughout the course of this relatively stupid argument) to resolve these petty disputes and discuss the actual points in issue. The fact that you have failed to have done this shows your unwillingness to scrutinize yourself to the same level that you scrutinize others. That, to me, is the essence of hypocrisy, and hardly defines the sort of character who can legitimately criticise "the youth of today"....

By the way, your correcting of my typos above was petty. I mean, honestly... who would descent to such pedantry? Look in the mirror, yorker.. your face might not be the only thing that's ugly :)

16. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60127 by IQHQ on August 1, 2007 at 4:39 am

Aragon

Excellent post, and a timely reminder ;)

17. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60106 by IQHQ on August 1, 2007 at 2:51 am

Yorker

I am not sure I want to even reply to you. It's becoming blatantly clear that you lack the ability to take any sort of criticism whatsoever. At least my criticisms have "a point", otherwise I would not make them. But you seem to just enjoy the vendetta. I don't want to me infected by your malignant emotional toxins, therefore i'll restrict myself to pointing out one thing which, throughout the course of this whole thread, you have manged to avoid.

Is there any way that you can deal with the "issues at hand" and ignore your personal issues with me? It's so boring.

I pointed out an analogy with Chomsky. As it happens, I was reading one of his books when I made the comment. Why is this something to ridicule? First of all, I have read many of his books, and he is one of my favourite thinkers. Yet the fact that I made such an analogy here says nothing about my familiarity (or lack of) with his work. Naturally, if he was in my mind at that moment then a related analogy would present itself naturally. Why is there cause to make fun of me?

Granted, in my last post, and for the first time, I descended to your tactics and was slightly harsh. Yet, again, at least I had a point. The analogy was not at all "irrelevant", as you say, and for the following reason. The United States, as a geographical, cultural and political entity, to its credit is filled with all sorts of different people, with different opinions and worldviews. When a dissident like Chomsky criticises the government (in the same way that Maverick criticised the running of this website) there follows criticisms from certain quarters than he is being "unpatriotic" (just as you questioned why Maverick would bother posting here). Is your point that the site (and its running) is beyond criticism? And, if not (which I hope) must these critcisms be made according to a strict formation, according to your tastes? I'd hope you could realise that Maverick, whilst enjoying the many things this site can offer, can still maintain his RD.Net status even though he dares to criticise it occasionally. The analogy seems to me to be a very good one, and far from irrelevant. Chomsky is no less an American for having the balls to criticise the government. In fact, he is all the more so . . .

18. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59986 by IQHQ on July 31, 2007 at 11:14 am

Keith

(short reply, running out to the cinema)

You may be right, there's something for me to think about. Thank you! Granted, we all speak many "languages", in different contexts. Yet, for example, Christopher Hitchens uses very flowery language to speak about the same issues we are discussing on this forum (and others). If he were to show up here, he would not compromise his idiosyncratic style. More later. C ya ;)

19. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59954 by IQHQ on July 31, 2007 at 8:14 am

Keith

Yo man, it's da way my mind works and shit, you get what i'm sayin? ;)

I guess that, as a lawyer in the UK (with a very traditionalist judiciary) the number of cases I have read over the years has influenced my linguistic expression. Be that as it may, shouldn't we restrict ourselves to matters of substance? I'm hardly the most inarticulate person around, and so, if my meaning is clear, don't you agree we should by-pass petty stylistic criticisms in the interests of debate? For God's sake! In the interests of diversity at least! ;)

20. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #59928 by IQHQ on July 31, 2007 at 6:29 am

NewAtheist & Almax & Corylus


1) I called Almax's post "lame", and do not believe this was un-called-for, even if expressed rather harshly. The reason is this: if the genuine origins of Almax's proclaimed militance are that "THEY won't leave us alone" then the response of "not leaving them alone either" is to stoop to their level. The Golden Rule dictates that, if we believe this type of "in your face" preaching is in bad taste, then we should adopt a different approach ourselves. I guess that's why I called it lame, because it is self-defeating and "bringing yourself down to their obnoxious level".

In terms of "predictable", I guess this comment stemmed from the resort to the Harris-esque "suicide bomber" point. It is a telling sign when someone, during the course of debate, resorts to the most extreme manifestation of the other side's tempered point, in an exaggerated attempt to dismiss and ridicule that point of view. It suggests, at least to me, that they are unwilling to co-operate in the more nuanced centre-ground debate, where things are not so black and white. I grew up here in Belfast, with a constant fear of violence, and know all too well of the carnage and emotional turmoil caused by it. Modern-day Islamic terrorism is the same sort of thing. My brother works in London, and gets the tube every day. I, myself, have cause to visit the capital quite fequently. Therefore, my fear of these people and their actions (AND the reasons why they act in such ways) is as important to me as it is to any of you. And so, when listening to my points, you should not assume that they have not been thought out. Indeed, this was probably the main reason for my labelling your post as facile, because by making your point (about suicide bombers) you seemed to imply that I had not already considered this elementary argument. I had.

2) Corylus, I do not believe my post (i.e. post 36) to have been in any way "pretentious", and if you do then please point out to me how it is. Is there any dispute that there is a huge range of intellects in the world? . . . .

[By the way, NewAtheist, I am not talking about education, but rather innate ability to reason analytically and synthetically. There may be a correlation between the two, but necessarily so - as your example amply demonstrates]

. . . .Is there any dispute here? The difference between a Noam Chomsky and someone with severe learning difficulties is not just a matter of which school they went to. This is not pretentiousness, it is a matter of fact. There is a notable reluctance for those of an academic disposition to speak as openly and frankly about these issues as I have done, yet I won't be restrained by political correctness. Sorry! Take this analogy: A woman who is extraordinarily beautiful has within her gift a potential to mate with and marry a much greater percentage of the male polulation than does a less attractive woman (and visa versa). Moral cliches, such as "it's what's on the inside that counts" etc. attempt to alleviate, in the interests of society, the dark and gloomy reality that this truism creates. They are just there to placate this "dark side of evolution", so to speak. So it is with religion. It provides certainty and solace in an uncertain and unfair world, and for this reason will always have a certain popular appeal. That we may wish this was not so is irrelevant when considering political and pragmatic strategies.

Those people with a higher intelligence have within their gift the ability to comprehend much more of the complexity of life than others do. In this sense, i agree with Hitchens in "God is Not Great" when he says he believes religion to be "ineradicable". A great many peole on this site seem to labour under what I perceive as a well-intentioned, but misguided, idealism, in which they foresee a future universal secular and intellectual utopia. These same people argue strongly that the transcendentalism and the "wonder and awe" satiated by religion can be equally well satisfied by the physical and biological sciences, with classic literature and poetry, etc. Yet it ignores the anti-intellectual impulse of most of our species, namely that "truth" is not the be-all and end-all. Not that they would openly admit to deliberately holding erroneous beliefs, but when it comes down to it, at least sub-consciously they would not be prepared to sacrifice the comfort and solace of religion with some harsh truths about the world. So, I am all in favour of sites like this, and the publication and promulgation of ideas such as those espoused in "The God Delusion" and "God is Not Great". I am all for facillitating, with support mechanisms, the easy transition from "dogmatic to rational" in our societies, and believe that this website is part of this worthy effort. Yet I do not think we should ram things down people's throats, any more than we would wish those same fundamentalists to do with us.

21. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59911 by IQHQ on July 31, 2007 at 4:32 am

NewAtheist

If I offended you, please accept my apology, and know that it was in no way my intention... not, of course, that this excuses the offence....

Also unintentional was my supposed "ignoring" of you and Corylus (and Almax). I will address all your concerns as soon as possible. But know this in advance (and before I have revisited the thread)... as I recall, I was grossly "misunderstood" on those threads. I hope all is laid to rest.

I'll post my response on the other thread. Watch that space.

22. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59843 by IQHQ on July 30, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Here we go again...

Yorker = The RD.Net Rochweiler

What business is it of yours, Yorker, to suggest to Maverick that he is only entitled to post here if he satisfies your particular model of "good form", "good taste" and "good opinions" . . . ? ? ? . . .

I'll tell you, none. Jees, you're like some smart-arse Republican in the states who says that Noam Chomsky is "unpartriotic" because he dares criticise the way the country is being run.

23. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59763 by IQHQ on July 30, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Yorker

For once I am in agreement with you... if anything, the t-shirt is overly subtle to achieve the effect intended. If one wishes to display their "lack" of supernatural belief through apparel (in keeping with the exhibitionist dress culture of our times) then perhaps a more obvious statement is needed.

dm4

Above, I cited several alternative suggestions. What is needed is an organation (perhaps the RDF?) akin to "Gay Pride", which can organise annual rallies in major cities in the US (not Europe, because Henri Bergson is dead right about Europe lacking the same urgency).

In terms of spreading the word about the website, the t-shirt may prove quite useful, but some sort of mass-advertising campaign (both on and off line) may prove so much more successful.

But, on the whole, if one is comfortable wearing an "atheist" t-shirt, then these represent a pretty good start. Personally, I don't value my atheism at all, but rather the "reason" which led me to such a conclusion. This is the sort of more constructive meme that I would prefer to see spread as a priority...

24. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59557 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Dr Benway

Exactly!

1) I agree, in theory, with "RichardDawkins.Net" being on such a t-shirt - in the interests of spreading the atheist meme, what could be better than to direct people towards the "clear-thinking oasis"! However, perhaps some sort of aggressive online (and offline) advertising campaign may be better to this end.

2) I am an atheist, yet I do not like defining myself in negative terms. An initial meme-spread in the interests of positive values, such as Reason, etc. may prove to soften the ground for future campaigns.

3) I would LOVE a t-shirt with Professor Dawkins' words at the Beyond Belief Conference in bold print - Science is cool, and if you don't like it you can FUCK OFF ! ! ! ;)

25. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59540 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 12:42 pm

That seems to be a common charge on your part Yorker. Is it just a coincidence that people with a "exaggerated sense of [their] own value" seems to constantly crop up around you? Or does the fault lie with your own perception? A case of externalization, perhaps? ;)

26. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59536 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Corylus

For the record, I was not the one who drew attention to my name. As Mr Empirical said above, it's just an internet handle. Don't read too much into it. I also referred briefly above to the reasons why I inherited this name. I don't take any particular pride in it. Indeed, if you had read my post above, you would realise that I too discount the significance of a Mensa-test. It is certainly not the be-all and end-all, and I did NOT choose the name through any pre-meditated attention-seeking exercise, but rather arbitrarily and for want of a better one. If you really want to "give me the benefit of the doubt", then accept what I have just said, and give me a break.

In relation to the quoted passage, I stand by everything that I said, but several points need to be borne in mind:

1) As I said above, we use this forum not just to display our already decided points of view, but also as a sounding-board for the intellectual evolution of our views. None of us are a finished product, and a hint of charity in your interpretation of people's ideas would go a long way to easing this evolution's progress. I have by now refined several of the ideas mentioned in the quoted passage, and would happily concede that, on a second reading, it does indeed seem that I was overly apocalyptic in my predictions. Let that be so... but let it be in the past.

2) Reading the passage again, I notice that it wasn't articulated in a very clear way. It is trite comment that sarcasm does not transfer to the blogosphere, and I may be guilty for not having made such sarcasm more clear, perhaps with the help of emoticons... e.g. "our refined and developed perspective" . . .

3) As regards to other parts of the quoted passage, I still hold those beliefs, e.g. the "carrot and stick" approach of religion. I am not acting like "The Grand Inquisitor", as Bonzai said on a different thread, I am just seriously convinced that certain aspects of the argument have been settled too quickly, without sufficient speculation as to the societal fallout of a hypothetically godless society. Yet, in this and all other areas of debate, I will stand corrected when I AM corrected. This is the nature of discourse, and the reason why we all like this forum so much. I am addressing the issues, and am open to challenge. I still don't see how the post was "pretentious wank". I completely accept that education cures ALMOST all of the aforementioned concerns. Socrates: "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance". Yet my initial points still remain. At least, in the course of elucidating and refining those points, I don't resort to the sorts of ad hominem attacks that so many others feel comfortable resorting to . . .

Now enough of this boring talk.... let's get back to more constructive debates . . . Henri Bergson, even though your comment was at my expense, I totally agree with you!


[Incidentally, to the person above who referred to the anti-social nature of many high IQ persons, I must briefly empathise with their plight. Is it any wonder that those of such intense mind develop personality disorders in the modern world? Our democratic societies are geared towards to average, and those who fall to the extremes get left disenfranchised. At least with those at the bottom end, socially-concerned governments will feel it their duty to do something to help. They wrongly assume that those who have higer intelligent quotients can "look after themselves", showing a serious lack of understanding of the issues involved]

27. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59499 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 9:02 am

Yorker

I really don't want to respond, but your post was so pathetic that I can't resist. I have plenty of life experience. I do not think you are dense because of your lower IQ. I have followed the thinking of Howard Gardner et al. and agree that the IQ test is not an adequate measurement of one's intelligence. I do not think of myself in such a high regard as you impute to me, nor have I ever alluded to it (except though my name, the origins of which have been explained). I stand up like a man anytime I need to, and have not failed to do so here, which sheds light on your motives for resorting to such challenges. You say I brought it upon myself, well read back and you will discover that it was indeed you you referred to my name.





POST 148... YORKER:

"Oh no! Tak about cringeworthy! I wouldn't wear an Atheist t-shirt anymore than I would wear a t-shirt saying that I was a Social Democrat! For goodness sake...."

As you can see I've repeated your words from #72.

Yes, you're right, you did express your own opinion, in such a way that indicates at least to me, that your way is THE way. That's what prompted my comment to you that others might wear it. So don't WTF me, WTF you! You might make me say your nickname gives a good insight into how you seem to feel about yourself! I think you slipped up here, don't dig a deeper hole.





Now, see what I mean? Where's the "wanker pretentiousness" here? I expressed a view, big deal.

28. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59493 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 8:46 am

debaser71


Happy Birthday ! ! ! ;)

29. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59491 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 8:45 am

Mr Empirical

Thank you for your support. That I have been accused of "wanker pretentiousness" is blatantly absurd, not to mention slanderous. Like everyone else on here, I express my opinion and should have the right to do so. One person (i.e. New Atheist) describing my posting history as a catalogue of "look how good I am" posts should not be taken as infallible. My personal suspicion is that the initial distate for my posting name coloured his (and others') interpretation of my posts. Like I said in response to Yorker above (see the main paragraph of post 153) - if one is to take Yorker's approach, then ANY time one expresses an opinion it could be interpreted as a proclamation of "This is the RIGHT WAY!" . . . except, of course, if we pussy-foot around in the way he seems to endorse, i.e:

"Let me premise my remarks by saying that this is ONLY my opinion, and certainly not to be taken by anyone as an objective claim. Please understand this; i do not want anyone to be offended by me simply holding a different belief"

. . or something to that effect . . how long would debates take if we resorted to such wishy-washiness! Of course when people make statements they are to be understood as subjective reflections upon objective references. This need not be re-iterated.

We are ALL in a constant state of intellectual evolution, and for those of us who have been deeply affected by a recent shift in our world-view, we use this forum not only as a place to promulgate our already decided beliefs, but also as a sounding-board for our evolving ideas. I say this in reference to some of my previous posts on previous threads, posts which "New Atheist" evidently has a problem with. That I previously felt concern about the military approach of "some" posters on this site should be accepted as "merely my personal view". That it did not correlate with his own views should not have been occasion for him to say "Screw You!" Yet this is what he said. It's all very well that you can hide behind the impermanence and anonymity of the internet to say such things, but I doubt very much that you'd say it to my face. For my part, as a contributor to this website (grateful for its existence) I will continue to address the "issues", and the issues alone, and to the best of my ability. Ad hominems are a replacement for a substance which is lacking. Whilst my "substance" may not be to your liking, at least respect my refusal to resort to your ad hominem tactics. And let's drop this futile discussion.

30. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59466 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 6:40 am

New Atheist

Be fair. I was not the one who started the ad hominems. I would far rather discuss the issues than resort to such tactics. Yet I am criticised and ridiculed for my nickname, despite having then given an account of why it was chosen? What exactly have I done wrong.

Incidentally, if you read my initial post and then read Yorker's reaction, I really do think you'd agree with me that he was going a bit wacky in calling me to task. I mean, for what! Expressing a personal preference as to a matter of taste? Give me a break...

p.s:~ I accept that I shouldn't speak for anyone except myself, and this is what I normally do. even you can see that the reference above was simply for rhetorical effect (i.e. and everyone else).

31. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59454 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 5:32 am

Well, without calling you to task on your ad hominems, i'd just ask you to comment on the main paragraph of my post above. You can hide behind the peripheral issues all you like, but everyone can see that you shyed away from actually addressing the substance.

Now will you actually address what I said??? Please??? Otherwise, I (and everyone else) will simply assume that you're one who is afraid to admit when they are wrong.

By the way, I am not in the least upset about what you think of me. Just so you know :)

32. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59451 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 5:03 am

Yorker

Not to argue about trifles, but let's settle this. And please, read the actual words I post, and not your own....

1) Apologies for my post 149; it was posted before I saw your post 148.

2) No apologies whatsoever for the content.....

First of all, that my screen-name IQHQ is NOT some self-congratulatory cerebral narcisicm, but rather a name my friends and colleagues call me. This started, I suppose, when I scored 182 in my mensa IQ Test, but owes more generally to my intense mental disposition. That you read into my name another (erroneous) interpretation is yet more evidence of my initial point, which is....

You dont seem to grasp that ANY time one expresses an opinion, one could be open to your interpretation (i.e. a proclamation that it is THE way to look at the isue). Indeed, if one were not to think that one's opinion were correct, then why would one hold it in the first place? Yet, your liberal pussy-footing has blinded you from the subtle distinction between one who proclaims a controversial (though sincerely held) belief and one who attempts to coerce another into believing it. In matters of fact and science, reason is our only hope. and so, when I make a statement, it can be challenged... then follows a rational discussion, in the hopes that it will lead to elucidation and greater understanding. In matters of taste (such as this trivial issue about a t-shirt) things are very different. there is no RIGHT answer, but merely personal preference. Now.. tell me what exactly was it about what I said that gave you the impression that I thought my way was the right way? Granted, it may sound like I felt it was the right way FOR ME, but that is a very different thing. One who, because of their emotional disposition, prefers the baroque sounds of Bach or Handel is not going to go a Heavy Metal concert just to prove that they accept it as a legitimate musical expression! Equally, you can express your dislike for chocolate ice-cream to a friend (who loves it), safe in the knowledge that they will not take personal offence....

So, to get to the point... why indeed do you feel I shouldn't be free to say I believe "Atheist t-shirts" to be cringeworthy? In the interests of constistency, I should mention that I grew up in Belfast, where logos are worn on t-shirts to proclaim tribal afiliations (i am not sure which part of Scotland you are from, but at least you can empathise). Therefore, I find all kinds of logo-displaying clothes to be a bit crude, but I accept (and know well) that this is based on my personal experience and is not some unflinching universal rule. Now.... I will ask you again.... what exactly is your problem?

33. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59444 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 4:44 am

Yorker

I await your apology, or at least your acknowledgement. You see, there is a serious problem here. there is a big difference between expressing one's own view and coercing another into believing the same. You unjustly accused me of the latter, and without one shred of evidence. That you saw what was not there begs the question that the problem lies in your perception and not in my phrasing.

34. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59438 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 4:05 am

Henri

Leave out all the 'true atheist' stuff, yeah>? You e giving me a headache!

Yorker

WTF? Read my post again (i.e. post no.72)... Where in that post did I do anything other than state my own preference? where did I try to force my ideas on anyone else? Well? So, what you're saying is that because some might wish to wear the t-shirt, then I shouldn't state my honest belief for fear of offending them? lol... that's a joke.

35. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59334 by IQHQ on July 28, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Oh no! Tak about cringeworthy! I wouldn't wear an Atheist t-shirt anymore than I would wear a t-shirt saying that I was a Social Democrat! For goodness sake....

I have to say i'm with Henri Bergson on this one. Leave it out.

36. The New New Atheism

Comment #57418 by IQHQ on July 19, 2007 at 9:20 am

Phaeonix

Yes, and in those respects I am at one with your assessments, that we need to change minds.. Yet the strategic question of how best to do that is the issue currently being debated. Those whom I have heard from thus far seem to employ no foresight except a "browbeating" approach that will, to my mind, ultimately prove counter-productive. Those same people laugh off the potential for initiating serious dialogue with those of a religious persuasion, citing selectively chosen perverse biblical passages and the fanatical exploits of fundamentalists as evidence that such an attempt is futile. I interpret this as a plea of desperation, i.e. citing the most extreme manifestation of one's adversary in order to obfuscate the real issues lying in the middle ground. In opposition to such fanatics we are as one. Yet more important issues are unsettled, issues which many on this site prefer to either ignore or laugh off.

37. An Atheist Responds

Comment #57361 by IQHQ on July 19, 2007 at 3:02 am

Interesting Catholic perspective on Hitchens, dated Summer 2000:

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2000/features_june-july00.html

38. The New New Atheism

Comment #57360 by IQHQ on July 19, 2007 at 3:01 am

I am hardly suggesting that religion should be mandatory. I believe in religious freedom. Yet, I do believe you (and your cohorts) are labouring under a misguided utopian vision of a world without religion. My point is that, whilst perhaps ideal, this vision is unachievable. And so, given this state of affairs, one should be satisfied with developing his own view of reality (confidently, and with reason) whilst not brow-beating those with a different outlook. Einstein's "gentle humility" in this regard is apt and sensible.

Incidentally, a Catholic perspective on Hitchens:

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2000/features_june-july00.html

39. The New New Atheism

Comment #57258 by IQHQ on July 18, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Lauregon




I have already detailed my objections to a "fundamentalist" or "literalist" interpretation, and need not do so again. I have already described how I accept that this is an unfortunate inevitability given the subjectivist approach of Protestant Christianity. Of course, I agree with you that many people's understanding is limited. That goes without saying, but this has no necessarily negative consequences within the Catholic Church. If a simple Catholic man or woman takes but a few simple lessons from their habitual church attendance, they are surely those of love, peace and comfort. At least that is my experience. The Catholic Church teach evolution in their schools, they teach that the Bible was written by man, they teach that the Gospel is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Even the most rudimentary acquaintance with Catholic teaching (as you yourself claim to have enjoyed/endured) would assuredly put to rest any suspicions that such misunderstandings could arise.

OK,

First I want to address the so-called "religious nutters". If someone is of such a disposition, then the unfortunate ramifications of their "misunderstandings" are hardly limited to a sacred text. We humans, both intelligent and unintelligent, set up demi-Gods all the time. We cannot help but be influenced by those whom we admire. In moral terms, these messages can be both positive and negative in tone and content. And if one, by their disposition, gets the two mixed up and acts barbarously (or maybe just stupidly) then in the interests of free speech we rightly refuse to investigate and prosecute the source of those influences (such as a book he/she read or a movie they watched). We blame the person for choosing what is (according to us and our law) the "wrong" course of action. It must also be so for the religious. Therefore, life itself is an interpretive exercise, with ourselves alone having ultimate responsibility of our actions. Granted, this tendency to "be led astray" is common to our humanity. Yet you must accept that Protestantism affords a more malignant potential for it to spread. As an aside (and while I am on the topic) - another unfortunate part of Protestant theology is their insistence that faith alone ("sola fide") can save, blatantly ignoring such verses as James 2: 14-26 which insists that "good works" are also essential. "Faith without works is dead", he says, not that a Protestant would recognise the text, being, as it was, discarded by Luther during his frenzied "reforms". . .

Incidentally, and in relation to "simple folk" (the second of my two main points), one important thing must be borne in mind. Not everyone is as intellectual as the posters on this site. Those who are not may well be more inclined to adopt a religious worldview. Pulling down their hope and faith may gratify your ambitions, but where does it leave them? Recommending that they substitute the Bible (or Mass, etc) with reading Stephen Hawking or Stephen Jay Gould or Jared Diamond is hardly an option, such texts being beyond their comprehension. Let us not forget that whilst these people are not as intelligent as you or I, they represent a vastly larger section of our population. They may not be able to read the same books, but they have equal influence in many other ways. "If God is dead, then everything is permitted" - this may well be fallacious given our innate moral instincts, yet two simple points must be remembered:

1) It ignores that many people believe that their morality stems from religion.

2) Much more importantly in a pragmatic sense... Even if they do accept that their morality does not "depend" upon their faith, nevertheless they may wholly or partially lose their inclination towards following it (at least as often as they did before, given the urgency and eternal necessity of so acting).




(Really, many on this site grossly misunderstand the social dynamics of human society. Open Pandora's box if you choose, but we really need to consider the consequences of our actions)

40. The New New Atheism

Comment #57176 by IQHQ on July 18, 2007 at 1:09 pm

FAO Bonzai

I am not suggesting anything whatsoever about the intellectual credentials of any particular Christian. To do so would be absurd. In any event, I am not responsible for what other people do or do not do, but I can report my experiences. That certain evangelicals indulge in such "Bible Searching", as you call it, I cannot possibly say. I wouldn't be surprised, and certainly not impressed.

Yet I can say two things of relevance here, in support of what is, by far, the largest Church in the world:

1) An issue was raised above (somewhere) along the lines of - "If biblical study is an interpretive exercise, who is to say which is the correct interpretation?" This was a central discussion at the Council of Trent, and one of the main reasons for the counter-reformation. The Church provides the guidance for interpreting the bible. Indeed, it must be so, for the reasons set out above. If it is left open to subjective understandings, then anyone with a fervent imagination can interpret nearly any particular passage in nearly any way they choose - especially so if they simply (and foolishly) open the Bible and (in their laziness) pick out random (and out of context) quotes. Revelation, as interpreted by the said subjectivist Protestants over centuries has, as predicted, caused much confusion, hatred and strife. Jonathan Kirsch wrote a very good book in this regard, called "A History of the End of the World".

2) It seems to be somewhat of a competitive sport (stemming from vainglory) amongst evangelical Christians to "compete" as to who can more accurately and speedily quote biblical verse, passage and verse, in front of their congregants. This is not something I am familiar with, but certainly seems a ludicrous pursuit. Catholics, being more sacramental in their worship, do not indulge in this same activity. The Mass is structured in such a way as to be universal. Whilst you (and others) may indulge in what I called above an "amateurish sort of mock biblical analysis" and quote all the dangerous and seemingly immoral verses in the Bible, I can (and must, seeing it is true to my experience) report that at no time, in my whole life, have I ever heard a moral message during the Mass that correlates with the sort of vitriolic verses many so proudly quote as denigrating Christian dignity. It may be otherwise for religious nutters, but then the problem lies not in the Bible, but rather, simply, in the fact that they are nutters.


Also, i'm not quite sure what your point is. are you suggesting that many Christians interpret that little of the Bible that they read in such an unscholarly way as to think it justified, for example, that one's child is truely stoned to death for disobedience? Perhaps, in my charity, I have underestimated the stupidity of some Americans.

41. The New New Atheism

Comment #57153 by IQHQ on July 18, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Lauregon

I accept your point, and that it is true to your experience. Yet my experience differs from yours in a quite strinking fashion. I have had the pleasure of meeting many religious people (admittedly most have been Catholics) who were able to passionately debate a range of different issues with me, including our "natural state of agnositicism". That you have not had similar discussions may be more indicative of the geographical region in which you live rather than any inherent intellectual inadequacies on the part of their faith.

42. The New New Atheism

Comment #57056 by IQHQ on July 18, 2007 at 8:11 am

"But Mr. Hitchens knows perfectly well that human beings are not born in Rousseauian purity and freedom, and then made savage by the imposition of the chains of religion"

DUH! And he says nothing of the sort, despite Berkowitz's implied suggestion that he does. He does say something completely different, i.e. "Born sick and commanded to be well". That we are born sick is, I believe the one irrefutable truth of Christianity. We are all born with an instinct of self-service, and a tendency towards greater and greater selfishness. If this was not kept under vigilant monitoring and social pressure, we would slowly descend into a ghastly world of pure "survival of the fittest". That we are comanded to be well is more controversial. There are many ways in which we can "try" to become well, some more substantial than others. The issue of whether faith is THE way to become well is the raison d'etre of this site, and many a church besides. We are in disagreement, but one simple and self-evident point must be made. Faith, and the benefits thereof, cannot be tested empirically. No one can do an experiment along the lines of:

"OK, I am going to pretend to put my trust in God, to see if I get healed from my illness"

Therefore, one must take the word of those who truely do have faith. It seems that, overwhelmingly, they do derive many benefits and much solace. This, of course, does not make it TRUE, but if it helps cure the "ilness" we are all born with, then isn't that "another sort of truth", a certain "beauty"?

43. The New New Atheism

Comment #57039 by IQHQ on July 18, 2007 at 7:44 am

buhbriantwo

"is he trying to put out the impression that a "new atheism" has been done before?"

Yes, and he would be right to do that. Where I live, these arguments are old hat, and that such arguments have here matured and been refined and developed over years, means that they are less vitriolic and more all-encompassing. In your young, native country of USA, these arguments are only reaching momentum now, and for that reason they are worth making. But Americans would do well to study the secular/religious history of European countries as a guide on how to proceed (and how not to proceed). Indeed, Dawkins himself primarily wrote "The God Delusion" for an American audience, and for the reasons mentioned, to make a point worth making. That America have not, at least in recent years, been good at learning the "lessons of history" is probably an issue more worthy of exploration than the hostile vitriol being shown towards your own religious countrymen. Ethnocentrism offends evolutionary principle every bit as much as religious faith (probably more).

44. The New New Atheism

Comment #57031 by IQHQ on July 18, 2007 at 7:30 am

buhbriantwo

"If there's no god to hate, then why spend time on it?"

My sentiments exactly! However, answer me this: do people on this website do more arguing about the "lack of God" or do they do more arguing about other, unrelated issues (safe in the knowledge that arguing about God is futile)? I think you know what the answer is.

45. The New New Atheism

Comment #57028 by IQHQ on July 18, 2007 at 7:25 am

buhbriantwo

"If one refuses to adhere "slavishly literally" to the Bible, then why take such writings seriously at all?"

I have long made a slightly similar argument in debate with theists, namely that if biblical writings are meant to be interpreted subjectively, and their content viewed as of a solely metaphorical value, then why treat them any differently than, say the writings of Dostoevsky or Goethe or Shakespeare? I put the point that any time we read anything at all, it is a subjective interpretive exercise, considering that over and above the (relatively) fixed definition of words are connections in how our minds understand those words. Yet from reviewing the answers I get back, and from my own reflections, I seem to understand where Christians are coming from on this point and this is how:

The Bible is the story of man's strivings for the Divine. The whole Bible must be seen as one whole, and thus to selectively demean a particular verse is a redundant criticism. Covenental understandings in Christianity are that Jesus was the fulfillment and culmination of these strivings, and thus to pick at the immorality of "an eye for an eye" is superfluous given that, for Christians, Jesus already did so! Another problem, one casually overlooked by most on this website who amateurishly indulge in a sort of mock biblical analysis, is that the non-religious people at this time were quite naturally every bit as bad, morally. Perhaps, they were even worse. Not to see things in their historical context (and to hence compare biblical events against a modern context of perceived maturity, is therefore wilfully negligent (and for ulterior motives). It is Jesus, and Jesus alone, who is said (in the Bible) to have the divine eternity shining through him. Before him, the Messiah had not come and the Jews were (it is said) groping in the dark. Now, as atheists, we may laugh at anyone placing value on the mythical import (or metaphorical value) of this story. Yet, consider for yourself how central a role myth plays in your own life. Myths of beauty, myths of strength, everyone has many "ideals" in their mind. Every time we turn on the TV! We cannot escape myth, no matter how hard we try. It has ALWAYS been a factor in human development. What Christians say is merely that this is the one myth (or framework or model or metaphor) that truely holds out a promise of substance, unlike many of the superficial illusions we buy into as humans (or, more appropriately in this context, as consumers). That they correlate this into an external picture of reality may be essential if this framework is to bear fruit the way it is intended. I notice regularly how many of us atheists view the apparent happiness of the religious with contempt, as if to say "They are living a lie: it's not just and fair that they be happy in light of this fact!", and those who do may have a strong point. Yet, in my many encounters with both atheists and Christians over the years, I find Christians on the whole more loving creatures, more altruistic, more "other-centred". No doubt this will be attacked as having no theoretical foundation (ala Hitchens), yet it is my experience, and no one can refute it. Yet you can try to understand it, if you'll postpone criticism for just a second?

46. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56921 by IQHQ on July 17, 2007 at 8:37 pm

To think, I nearly asked if you had msn! (nice pic) :)

47. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56916 by IQHQ on July 17, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Irate_Atheist

Referring to darwin2, a man (or woman?) that you have never met as "my little friend" is demeaning and derogatory, and evidently for the simple reason that he is a believer. Please don't be so condescending, it does you a disservice.

Elli

Conquer here has been used in a metaphorical sense only, therefore the direct dictionary reference hardly helps.

48. The New New Atheism

Comment #56913 by IQHQ on July 17, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Great article. I particularly liked the concluding sentence:

"And it is reason enough to respect believers as decent human beings struggling to make sense of a mysterious world"

We would all do well to remember this. It is interesting how defensive some of the contributors on this website become when they are charged with being "as dogmatic as the religious". The Oxford Dictionary defines "dogmatic" as:

"Inclined to assert principles or opinions as incontrovertibly true"

I do not think that there is any doubt that many of our fellow atheists are inclined in such a way about opinions such as "There is no God". We would do well not to get too chuffed at ourselves for having arrived at an atheistic standpoint. The arguments by which we have done so are facile, and not beyond the comprehension of a child. Hitchens continually admits as much. Therefore, it is rude and arrogant for us to speak condescendingly to our religious friends, with the ridiculous assumption that "they must never have thought about it". Maybe this is true for some nutjob fanatics, but it is not so for the vast majority of believers.

49. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56375 by IQHQ on July 15, 2007 at 11:39 am

Bonzai

With respect, The Brothers Karamazov is one of my favourite pieces of Russian literature, and I have read it many times. I did not use it out of context, and simply ascribed it to Dostoevsky the way one may ascribe "To be or not to be" to Shakespeare. Anyway, source is unimportant. It is a concise and direct encapsulation of a certain viewpoint on the issue at hand. You have not portrayed my position correctly. I do not believe that religion without God as a means of control is sufficient justification. I do not believe in God, yet others do. And I am speculating about the powerful (and arguably positive) effect this has on the frequency and urgency of their moral actions. I do not want to control anyone. Rather, I trust that those, like us, who see through religious systems and discard them from our worldview, will do so of their own accord, without the browbeating that is commonly advocated on this site. Those who are NOT READY (if they ever will be) to discard God and religion from their lives are the focus of my argument. The ramifications of denying those people their solace (possibly, for reasons foreign to us, genuine and true-to-experience) is very different than the organic, gradual process of enlightenment that we have undertaken.

50. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56362 by IQHQ on July 15, 2007 at 9:45 am

You see, Bonzai, I tend to agree with you. Your point is a good one. But there is rarely a "Master" in this siuation, except for "the Man upstairs", who is basically one's conscience, as mediated through the folk parables of the Bible, etc. In so far as such conscience is externalised, one may feel an urgent, pressing obligation to follow it. Otherwise, do you deny that a certain measure of hedonism may take over?

Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with the occasional hedonistic indulgence ;) I am looking at the big picture here. Help me out.