101. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15508 by hopeful on December 31, 2006 at 10:26 pm

One of the great things about being an atheist is that there is so much for us to laugh about.

I doubt whether we atheists give religious people much to laugh about. In fact, now I think about it, it must be incredibly dull being religious.

102. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15504 by hopeful on December 31, 2006 at 10:04 pm

LDMiller said: "Having said that, what has happened in America should be a warning to those of you in other countries. You all have godders in the wings salivating furiously, either home-grown or immigrants.

The evangelicals spent nearly 100 years gaining control of the US. They started at the local level..."

I absolutley agree. I've seen postings on this web site from Australians discussing this, and I think my country, New Zealand, is just as likely to go in this direction.

We've had years of political correctness, government bending over backwards to protect cultural and religious diversity, churches sprouting up on every street corner, increased immigration with greater numbers and variety of religious devotees. There is currently a "Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity" by our Race Relations Commissioner that could potentially lead to, among other things, greater incursion of religion into the state education system.

103. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15439 by hopeful on December 31, 2006 at 10:26 am

It's too late now, but I think something a little less emotive, like the term "natural" might have been a better choice. I think this better describes the atheist viewpoint and it doesn't sound arrogant.

Daniel says: "As I said in my first posting to On Faith, we all need to agree to live by the principles of rational discourse. That, and common courtesy, is the only rule we need–-just as in science."

The problem with this statement is that it only applies to atheists. Theists also require the rule that there is god.

Daniel says: "As long as those who are believers will acknowledge that their allegiance gives them no privilege, no direct line to the absolute truth, no advantage in moral insight, we should be able to get along just fine."

Possibly Daniel is being sarcastic here, because unfortunately this is exactly the opposite of what we find in theists.

104. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15118 by hopeful on December 29, 2006 at 2:59 am

David Robertson said: "And how many books for nine year olds do you know that have such warning signs on them?"

David, you have missed the main point I was making, but don't worry about it because in hindsight I don't expect you to appreciate it.

I have one final request for you. Instead of putting so much energy into rebutting every posting, why don't you just spend a bit of time thinking about what is really being said. There is a lot of intelligence, experience and wisdom in this web-site.

105. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15034 by hopeful on December 28, 2006 at 11:11 am

David Robertson,

You describe the TGD chapter title "Why there almost certainly is no God" as a rhetorical device.

I think you are wrong - there was a very specific reason why Dawkins used that title, and that is because he DOES actually concede a possibility (albeit very small) that there is a god. I suspect most atheists do, because they tend to be open-minded people who are prepared to change their minds if evidence dictates it.

David, I'm guessing your religious "education", like that of many people I have seen, almost certainly consisted of many well-meaning people presenting you (in written and verbal form) with a deluge of "evidence" regarding god and the bible, plus the message that you must have faith, faith is a good thing etc etc.

Someone recently gave my 9 year old son a book called "The Big Word for Kids". It is a 600 page paperback with a glossy, colourful cover. Big print and plenty of fun pictures sprinkled throughout the book.

There is no warning or disclaimer at the start of the book regarding regarding the possibility of error or the fact that this is a particular set of beliefs not shared by everyone.

The book begins:

"The Big Word for Kids is mostly about Jesus - the son of God. Most of it was written by his friends..."

then a few paragraphs later...

"Jesus was able to do many things - he wanted people to see what God was like. Jesus wanted everyone to know that God loves them. Jesus made sick and sad people better and even brought a dead little girl back to life!"

and then the next paragraph...

"Jesus showed everyone he met that God loves them and cares for them".

Notice there is no mention of probability, no mention of uncertainty, no mention of theory, no mention of evidence, no mention of careful evaluation, no mention that this is just what some people believe.

Just absolute, completely non-negotiable assumption and certainty dictating what IS to the young, impressionable reader.

If the topic of god was really approached from a rational, evidence basis, wouldn't this book be written quite differently?

106. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14930 by hopeful on December 26, 2006 at 10:57 pm

LDmiller said: "Point is, these results show that science is not the signed, sealed and delivered case that many commenters here seem to think."

On the contrary I think most people here see science as quite open-ended and eagerly await the next chapter...

107. A Mission to Convert

Comment #14837 by hopeful on December 25, 2006 at 7:24 pm

Regarding Comment #14749 by denoir:

"Demanding sophisticated arguments against religion is like demanding a sophisticated argument against the existence of Santa Claus. The basic premises of religion are so trivial that it does not need any particularly sophisticated arguments. There are of course people who try to make religion into something more sophisticated - but all they are doing is making arbitrary constructions upon a deeply flawed foundation."

Very well said!

The fact that legions of biblical scholars have invested their lives studying and discussing the minutae of religious doctrine does not make their beliefs one bit more valid. It does however make them extremely determined to protect their personal investment.

Pretending that religion and faith are mysterious, deeply complex topics that require expert understanding (and therefore could not be addressed satisfactorily by an "amateur") is simply another ploy to protect religion from criticism.

108. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14808 by hopeful on December 25, 2006 at 10:35 am

To me, this sentence sums up one of the sadder aspects of religion:

"From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe."

109. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #14007 by hopeful on December 20, 2006 at 4:25 pm

Johnc said "If the best he can come up with is the empirically vacuous notion that children have a "Darwinian rule of thumb" to believe their parents, he would have been better off admitting that we simply don't know ... "

Although I personally didn't find RDs theories regarding the basis of religion totally convincing I think you are being overly harsh with this statement. It seems entirely reasonable to me to suggest that there may be an evolved tendency for children to believe their parents. Many (not all) children that ignored their parent's advice on important issues would perish, particulary in times past.

One could even argue that the tendency to heed advice to eat broccoli was not strongly reinforced since failure to eat broccoli would not be particularly high on the danger list relative to other dangers.

Regardless of all that, as a father of two boys I can confirm that although they sometimes decide not to listen to my advice (broccoli is a good example and tidying their bedrooms is another) I know that generally my sons are very much a reflection of my guidance and coaching during their lives so far. I have no doubt that if I had been devoutly religious it would be highly likely that they would be "believers" too, at least until they are older.

110. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13979 by hopeful on December 20, 2006 at 12:10 pm

It is interesting to note that theists seem to need to resort to devious methods (for example Liddle's suggestion that Darwin's writings are viewed as sacred text) to attempt to make their point.

I can't recall too many atheists needing to use false statements, word tricks or misleading statements to argue against religion.

It is quite disturbing to think that there might be people who believed what Liddle was saying. It certainly plays into the hands of theists.

It is also interesting to observe how the tactic of (mis)representing atheism as a religion is gradually spreading. I anticipate we will see more and more of this approach.

111. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13862 by hopeful on December 19, 2006 at 8:20 pm

David Robertson said "It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked."

His attempt to attach the labels "fundamentalist" and "faith" to atheists is transparent and predictable.

Liddle's attempt to characterise atheism as a religion was equally transparent.

It is interesting to note that theists seem to need to resort to devious methods (for example Liddle's suggestion that Darwin's writings are viewed as sacred text) to attempt to make their point.

I can't recall seeing or hearing any atheist needing to use word tricks or misleading statements to argue against religion.

112. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #13631 by hopeful on December 18, 2006 at 11:25 pm

Excellent interview. Richard Dawkins was given the opportunity to get his key points across very clearly.

The rebuttal was interesting. Richard Randerson was clearly nervous (and who can blame him after such an articulate talk by Dawkins!) and his main defence seemed to be to back-pedal on the issue of faith and a supernatural god. His statements were meandering and intentionally misleading, repeatedly using examples of the good works of the church as a smoke-screen.

Kim Hill did an excellent job of representing Dawkins' position and of questioning Randerson's hollow arguments.

I am a New Zealander and some of Randerson's comments made me fearful for my own country. What has happened in America could happen in New Zealand if allowed.

113. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #12988 by hopeful on December 14, 2006 at 11:34 pm

An excellent talk! Well worth watching. Even thought I don't agree with Ken Miller's religious beliefs I greatly admire his determination to prevent the corruption of science and education in general and I have a lot of respect for him after watching this.

This is compelling viewing, particularly the text-book labelling issue, and the irreducable complexity issue.

They did any excellent job of keeping their personal religious beliefs in the background and dealing with this vitally important issue in a very rational way.

114. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #11986 by hopeful on December 9, 2006 at 1:07 am

David Robertson.

You say you want intelligent debate.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you believe there are or have been people who have prayed for a cure whose prayers have been fulfilled?

2. Do you believe there are or have been people who are amputees who have prayed for a limb to be restored whose prayers have been fulfilled?

3. If you answered Yes to (1) and No to (2) then can you please explain why this is the case.

115. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11885 by hopeful on December 8, 2006 at 2:55 am

Liddle says: "...'Have an enjoyable sexual relationship with someone of either gender but try not to hurt anyone while doing so' — that sort of thing. They have no resonance, not the slightest suggestion that they might outlast even our current generation, never mind provide us with a template for 2,000 years."

How can Liddle make such an absurd statement!!!

Read it again: 'Have an enjoyable sexual relationship with someone of either gender but try not to hurt anyone while doing so'

and Liddle says "...not the slightest suggestion that they might outlast even our current generation"

This won't outlast even the current generation???

Notwithstanding Dawkins' reply, this particular example of a commandment would surely serve us very well for many many times longer than the bible has existed!

116. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11697 by hopeful on December 6, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Tom B writes "Whos happier???
The Christian who believes he is going to live forever??
Or the atheist who believes he is going to be dead forever?
Ask yourselves what is important"

You've hit upon a key reason for the success of religion which is that it gives people something they want to hear - which is the belief that they will live forever.

From the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in god, religion is a delusion - and most importantly it's a comfortable delusion. It provides quick and easy answers and hope.

You might be happier believing paradise awaits you after you die, but I would rather know the truth (or as much truth as I can obtain) about the reality I find myself in.

I strongly suspect that when I die my consciousness will end. Am I looking foward to it? - definitely not. I love life and I don't want it to end for lots of reasons. I console myself with the belief that I will not be aware of the ending of my consciousness. It will not hurt, I will not be sad, I will not miss anything, i will not be bored. All of time will pass, yet no time will pass.

That tells me I should make the best use I can of my consciousness, not waste it in a delusion or dreaming about what is going to happen to me after I die.

117. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11456 by hopeful on December 4, 2006 at 7:29 pm

Very good video.

However I'm not particularly optimistic that it would get through to a fully indoctrinated person. No matter how clear and simple the message when talking to believers there is a wall that seems impenetrable.

It would be great to show to young people who might be at risk of indoctrination. I will certainly show it to my sons.

118. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11455 by hopeful on December 4, 2006 at 7:17 pm

Goff,

Please read this and then tell us again how the question of religion is too trivial to bother with...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2023831.ece