251. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #82417 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 9:04 am

Um, Mewtwo_X. That is false.

An axiom is just an unargued foundational assumption.

There are loads of theologians who use axioms in their arguments... (i.e. the axiom that there has to be a solution to an infinite regress.... which I think is false, but anyway... it's one that is used).

Using axioms doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

The answer to this topic is simple:

1. BAEOZ is sort of right. There are several meanings to the word "faith". Religious FAITH can mean EITHER "the leap of faith" (which was NOT first used by Kierkegaard, but by Jacobi) away from the problems of philosophical dogmatism (that is, Spinozism), or "THE faith", meaning "the acts of worship". The latter does not REQUIRE faith in the former sense... one could be an atheist and still act religiously.

2. By definition Science does not operate on faith, or make claims which rest on faith... but the very opposite... The scientist operates under the assumption that everything he is saying is falsifiable. (at least, since Popper).

The way religion uses "faith" is as a method of arriving at a solution without doing the work.

E.g.

An example of faith: The Crucifixion and miracle of the Resurrection of Christ are the gift of salvation for all those who accept it.

There is no way of PROVING that one's "soul" is "saved" merely by "accepting" Christ (as Saviour).

It is BY DEFINITION an article of faith... and is so central to Christianity that if you don't believe in it, you aren't a Christian.

On the other hand, let's use evolution as the example. The Scientist is not told "accept what we tell you as fact, or you cannot call yourself a scientist", and it isn't a case that evolution is "unprovable". On the contrary, the evidence can be arranged into a solid deductive proof for the evolution of life on Earth by natural selection (etc.)

This proof is not a guarantor of ABSOLUTE truth, which is to say, it is not meant to be assented to "in faith", but is meant to be subjected to rigorous testing, analysis, and the evidence.

It just so happens that certain scientific propositions are so well supported that the likelihood of their being disproved is near zero... but, of course, it is not QUITE zero.

And that is the difference.

252. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82411 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 8:48 am

Oh, and just so y'all know. Both of them got Spinoza's ontology wrong. LOL.

253. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82409 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 8:46 am

Comment #81513 by oxytocin:

Spinoza,
xianity may have done well in Fiji, but the same effect could have been achieved by sending in the police. Again, secular people could do the same thing that any theist could do. That xians show some form of human decency is something they do despite their barbarism, not because of it.

Absolutely right, but that is not what the point was. The point the man was making was that Christians, acting Christian (converting...) did it. (you may want to say, knee-jerk, "So What!"... but that doesn't really suffice... and just for posterity, I am an atheist, but I think it is only fair to acknowledge valid points).

The claim that sending in POLICE would work is a bit absurd. That's an empirical claim, not one that can be assented to a priori.

Though it is true (and blatantly obvious) that any act of GOODNESS the religious can do can be accomplished by secular people... in this particular case, it should be noted that the evil act of "brainwashing" was probably a much easier way to get the Fijians to stop eating themselves... whether we want to admit it our not... secular policing and scapegoating and the like may or may not have worked...

But, the only thing the Fijian comment shows is that Christianity succeeded in doing SOMETHING good in this case, however INADVERTENTLY (they weren't going to Fiji to stop Fijians from eating each other, but to "save their souls" and colonize...), something that secular work would perhaps have a harder time doing, and indeed, didn't do (whatever this means).

It is a very small, very weak point of concession, but it is one, nonetheless.

254. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81517 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Baeoz, either it works or nothing does, and if nothing does, then why is this thread here?

... The atheist's goal should not be to "convince" others at whatever cost, but to get things right...

And Plato's Euthyphro IS the answer to this question. 2500 years ago he solved the problem. If the theists don't understand it, there's not anything else which can be said.

255. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81510 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Love is an empirical measurement of personal value and sacrifice.

Be careful not to define yourself into a hole.

All the theist has to do here is deny your definition of love and you're sunk.

Stick to logical arguments that avoid strict definitions of terms, especially empirically.

256. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81509 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 9:12 pm

You guys would make awful philosophers.

There is a reason philosophy is HARD. You have to come up with awesome analogies like mine that show the idiocy outright and clear as day.

257. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81489 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 8:27 pm

This question originates in William James' "The Will To Believe."

You can CERTAINLY PROVE that SOMEONE loves YOU. (which is the actual problem, not that YOU love someone, since everyone knows when they love someone... since if you don't know if you love someone, then you don't).

William James gave the speech "The Will To Believe" as a response to William Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief", wherein it was argued that: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone to believe ANYTHING without sufficient evidence."

James' response (the pragmatist that he was) was to find examples of things we WANT to believe, but for which we have no evidence, but which BECOME TRUE AFTER we start believing in them, rather than being true a priori.

Love is his strongest example. And if fails prima facie.

I know my girlfriend loves me because she gives me lots and lots of hints. (EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!!)

If I was a philosophical skeptic, I would ask myself "Yeah, but how do I REALLY know she loves me, since she could just be ACTING, and the phenomenological state of ACTING would appear to me the same as the TRUE state."

But I'm not a skeptic, and anyway, the skeptic about love is just being silly, for reasons elucidated by NUMEROUS philosophers with regard to the Brain In A Vat scenario (see: Hilary Putnam, G.E. Moore, etc).

So there.

I'm going to answer every single one of these debate points with my awesome Philosopher Powers. :)

... I have been annoyed and disappointed by public atheists' rebuttals to these questions in the past, because philosophers answered all of them LONG ago.

258. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81487 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 8:21 pm

If you don't believe in Phlogiston, you will be eternally pestered by ravenous rhinoceroses.

Therefore it's better to convince yourself to believe in Phlogiston, since if you're wrong, nothing bad happens, but if you don't believe in Phlogiston and you're wrong... you will suffer eternal rhino-damnation.

Q.E.D.

259. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81485 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Euthyphro.

Q.E.D.

260. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81362 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Unfortunately, I have to say that there were several points that can charitably be given to D'Souza... though by proxy of the hard to understand Tongan man who asked the question about the cannibals of Fiji.

He had a valid point. The question is "Is Christianity the Problem?"... well, of course, Christianity HAS problems, and blind faith, dogmatism, gibberish, bad metaphysics, etc, are among them.

But in that particular case, I think the descendants of Fiji's cannibals are grateful for being provided with an escape from what would have been a WORSE religious morality.

Hitch's rebuttal to this claim was surprisingly weak and uncharitable... and for him to be consistent, he should have acknowledged that in that particular case, Christianity DID do something good. Namely, it stopped people from eating each other.

But, he should have argued, that does not excuse the myriad wrongs Christianity has with itself, NOR the fact that Christianity is ultimately a lie.

Just disappointed about that one particular point, and D'Souza did a much better job here than he did against Shermer (who was less formidable).

I should add, this criticism is on top of the fact that I wanted to punch Dinesh in the nose several times throughout that debate.

261. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78786 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Good catch Quine!

262. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78782 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Quine, well, ignorance is the antithesis of true acquiescence of spirit! ;-)

263. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78748 by Spinoza on October 14, 2007 at 5:21 pm

An honour.

Do not wear that name in vain, Professor Dawkins.

Bruno would be proud.

Regards and congrats.

264. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #78620 by Spinoza on October 13, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Ugh, Quine, that link is awful (there are some wacked out Spinoza sites that totally misunderstand him and have hard-to-follow versions of his works (probably with lots of typos and bad translations too).

This one is better: http://www.philosophyarchive.com/text.php?era=1600-1699&author=Spinoza&text=A%20Theologico-Political%20Treatise

Though it too has an idiosyncratic style of display and margin.

I actually, rather, recommend getting a PROPER, MODERN translation off Amazon... relatively cheaply... The Curley translation is the best, second best (and my favourite) is the Shirley translation.

Elwes is a bit dated, which is why you find his free on the internet.

265. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #78614 by Spinoza on October 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm

The Theoligico Political Treatise of my namesake philosopher is quite possibly the most brilliant dethroning ever manifested upon this earth.

If you are to read Infidel, I urge you also to read Spinoza's TTP.

You will not be disappointed.

266. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78612 by Spinoza on October 13, 2007 at 9:07 pm

"The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God. Agree or disagree, but I would say to critics, at least grasp that that is being talked about. Often the atheist seems to be talking about something else."

I'm an atheist, and a philosopher, and a writer, and I'm not talking about something else, I'm talking about that "character of eternal and free agency"... it doesn't exist.

Except insofar as it is natural... and that ain't your God, sir. That's MY God. The natural universe.

Deus sive Natura. :)

267. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75845 by Spinoza on October 3, 2007 at 8:52 pm

I agree with nearly everything Sam says here 100%.

I have been saying such things for a LONG time... and getting shat on from both ends of the spectrum. Hehe.

268. Root and Branch

Comment #73956 by Spinoza on September 26, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Just an interesting point... Hacking is probably the most well-known Philosopher at my University... he was named one of the top 25 thinkers in the world by some French outfit (I forget).

.. Never met the guy, but he seems like a smart cookie.

LOL.

269. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72865 by Spinoza on September 23, 2007 at 9:21 am

Ok, I'm hijacking this post back to the stupid basic astronomy question from the show...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMFsuBlkoIQ&mode=related&search=

The question asks, "What rotates around the earth, the Moon, the Sun, Venus, or Mars?"

Now of course... the answer is the Moon. But the question itself is scientifically inaccurate. Technically, the moon does NOT rotate around the earth. It rotates around its own axis. However, it does REVOLVE around the earth. These facts I learned in 8th grade. So since we're talking about scientific literacy I just thought I'd point this out. Technically, the answer should be the earth rotates around the earth, not anything else.

Anyways, Neil deGrasse Tyson would have my back on this one. He can't stand inaccurate astronomy.

Just to point something out, "gravite" does mean "revolve" in French, not "rotate"... whoever did the subtitles fucked that up.

270. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72209 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Uh, sorry, but metaethics still hasn't nailed down what moral judgments refer to... so this sort of claim is basically nonsense.

It needs to be made clear that what people SAY is "wrong" or "right", or even what people are APT to call moral or immoral, is not the same as things which are moral or immoral (either PER SE, or via some other description, depending on your metaethical stance).

""It is at least possible," he said, "that conservatives and traditional societies have some moral or sociological insights that secular liberals do not understand.""

Um, sorry... but that's ridiculous. That's as bad as saying that religious people have access to God's moral framework and atheists don't.

So yeah, this article is bunk.

271. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #72110 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 11:01 am

Christ, (LOL) that debate is awful.

I'm sorry... Brian you sound CRAZY dude.

"Almost everybody on the internet knows it!"

WHAT THE FUCK?!

What is wrong with you!

272. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #72075 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 9:12 am

HOWEVER, Yorker also said this:

but most people in Edinburgh don't know who Hume was!

And he's ABSOLUTELY right.

I was recently in Edinburgh, on a stopover for a trip to Holland (to see Spinoza landmarks!), and I had looked up Hume's grave... it is a HUGE monument in "Old Calton" cemetery in the heart of Edinburgh. I went to the tourist information office, and asked where I could find "Hume's Grave" (I assumed this would be a well known monument), and the people in the office had no idea who he was. One of them went and grabbed a "History of Edinburgh" book and thumbed through the index to look for his name, found out he was buried in Old Calton (I knew this already, but that's another story), found that Old Calton was that big graveyard up on the hill around the corner, and that that big cylindrical stone monument that everyone always sees is actually Hume's Grave.

Here it is: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/2111/gifs/humegrave.gif

Yorker is right, most Scots don't know who he was, don't realize that not only was he an atheist, a philosopher, and a genius, but also that he was the greatest historian of Scotland as well.

However, I still think Yorker's position on atheist "recruitment" is absolutely wrong, and I am glad at least some others agree with me (though even if they didn't I would still be certain that I am right).

273. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #72072 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 9:06 am

We don't need more jaded college atheists, with brittle foundations of mere apathy or opposition, the Alister McGraths, the Francis Collins'. Atheists don't need to recruit for recruitments sake.

Needs to be repeated over, and over, and over again.

How many so-called "atheists" are going to pull a McGrath and in a decade revert back to their childhood beliefs, making atheism look like a fleeting fad that teenagers and college students just "go through", like the jokes about homosexual experiences in university ("I'm not gay I just went through a phase" = "I'm not an atheist, I just went through a phase"????????), or of drug use ("I tried it in college, but I didn't inhale"????? = "I was a skeptic in college, but it didn't last"????).

It makes me sick.

And to those of you who think Yorker was joking... he isn't.

274. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72043 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 7:45 am

Yorker, actually the Simpsons joke was about the unemployment office no longer being just for philosophy majors, "useful people are now feeling the crunch".

275. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72041 by Spinoza on September 20, 2007 at 7:38 am

Jiten, agree absolutely.

It still astounds me that I have had professors who are completely ignorant of basic science.

One of my goals as a grad student will be to try and move philosophy back toward its scientific roots (when science was called "natural philosophy") and to push the academic tradition to reject obscurantist positions like Midgley's.

276. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71639 by Spinoza on September 19, 2007 at 11:51 am

Well, just to be clear:

The vaccine, Gardasil®, protects against four HPV types, which together cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.

So there is still a chance one would get warts in any case (although much much less).

And I suppose the other 30% of cervical cancers are still going to pop up every so often (but 30% is MUCH better than 100%).

Honestly, I think the irrational fear of vaccines is far more common than religious doctrine. There are non-believers who are conspiracy-theorists about vaccines... bugs the shit out of me.

277. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71631 by Spinoza on September 19, 2007 at 11:29 am

... On second thought.. never mind:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/09/19/halton-hpv.html

They're not AS stupid as I thought.

278. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71622 by Spinoza on September 19, 2007 at 11:20 am

I live in Halton, and I went to a Catholic Highschool.

And I am PISSED about this.

FUCKING IDIOTS.

They think that it will "endorse" promiscuity.

That makes NO sense, given that we ALL had to get the Hepatitis B vaccine in grade 7 (age 13), and THAT is also an STD/needle-transmitted disease.

But it wasn't targetted at women, so it was okay.

Fucking MISOGYNISTIC BASTARDS!

AHHH I'm so fucking angry.

Hey Yorker, I feel you on this one.

I'm thinking of writing to the Champion (my hometown paper..) LAMBASTING the Catholic church for their idiocy.

Mandatory vaccines WILL result in some bad reactions and deaths... that is the price we pay for a CURE for a cancer that could potentially arise in over 80% of all females (approx. 80% have HPV).

AHHHH ASSHOLES.

279. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71100 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Lol, I think that Spinoza is simply trying to live up to the atheist characterization BlazingArrow. I know I've been called all of those things.

*ding ding ding*.

But I actually am a philosophical dogmatist as opposed to a philosophical skeptic. (Cf. Epicurus, vs. Cicero or Sextus Empiricus).

"dogma" is Latin for "principle". And I am certainly principled (as most of us are).

And don't mistake Shermer's "Skeptic" for an Academic Skeptic... they are different. Shermer certainly thinks we can know things.

No Pyrrhonian is he.

280. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71097 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 8:19 pm

I feel a Spinoza rant coming on.....

No need. Others did it for me! :P

281. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71043 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 4:04 pm

"Time to get over the fact that they will characterize us badly at every turn because that's the only thing they have as a defense against reality."

THEY?

Who's "they"???

I, sir, am not a faith-head. I'm the most atheist of atheists (a philosopher, a dogmatist, a nihilist, and a fatalist... all in one).

282. Argentine Church Faces 'Dirty War' Past

Comment #71041 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Nails, Zeitgeist is a JOKE... it's worse than "What the Bleep Do We Know?"... which was a CULT sponsored propaganda movie.

Zeitgeist is worse because it's not fundamentally misunderstanding a difficult to understand theory (string theory), which can happen to anyone... but it actually fucks up royally over and over, inferring things that don't follow, and presenting things as fact that simply aren't true.

And I'm an atheist, have never had religion... so it's not like I have any vested interest in preserving some ridiculous "facts"... it's just that Zeitgeist actually gets quite a few "facts" wrong.

I had a long discussion about this awful movie a few weeks ago on another board and I really don't feel like doing the whole nit-picking thing all over again (I already watched the piece of shit once, and that's enough).

Perhaps someone else who happens to know some ancient history can enlighten us as to the many errors in the first section of that movie (not to mention the many errors in the rest of it, which became an extended, raving conspiracy-theory laden bunch of bullshit).

283. Argentine Church Faces 'Dirty War' Past

Comment #71024 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Interesting article... Weird first two comments though.

Enemy-oriented stuff creeps me out.

284. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70883 by Spinoza on September 17, 2007 at 6:45 am

Man am I glad that outside of the internet crazy people on boths sides of the spectrum are not this pervasive.

285. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70762 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 9:12 pm

I'd just like to point out that the assertion that an elitist such as myself has not watched a lot of TV is quite ridiculous.

I have watched every episode of The Simpsons at least 30 times (all 380 or so episodes are on my computer), and I can quote rhyme and verse from any episode ad nauseam.

For instance, this idiotic thread reminds me of two episodes in particular, the one where the Mensa-ites of Springfield took over when the mayor skipped town (switching to Metric time, and then quibbling over silly things and being handed their asses by Stephen Hawking was brilliant)... But the line in particular that this reminds me of is when Carl says "Yeah, let's make litter out of you literati!" and Lenny says "You're one of them!!!"

As well, cf. "HOMR", the episode where Homer has the crayon removed from his brain to increase his IQ 50 points (to 105!):

Homer: "Effigy eh?... Yeah, nothing burns like an effigy... Hey that's ME! Stop that, the fire inspector would be appalled!"

Fire Inspector: "Don't tell me how to feel! "

So yeah, keep calling me names...

But I'm not the one with the knee-jerk anger (this is what we literati refer to as irascibility), and the obsession with conversion.

Perhaps some of you former Fundies can't shake old habits?

286. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70747 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 8:39 pm

I think that sounds like a load of bullshit. :)

287. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70745 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 8:29 pm

It is broadcasting out of Mississauga actually... and they lost a lot of funding, so it actually doesn't get far off the campus, unfortunately. (They have been trying to raise money to get the gov't to let them broadcast a stronger signal for at least half a decade now... it doesn't seem to be going well).

But you can certainly listen online.

Here is the website: http://www.cfreradio.com/

(the Listen Online feature seems to be broken at the moment... It is all new management this year so they are trying to fix a lot of broken stuff...)

I will post a big message in the boards when it starts airing though (probably sometime in Oct.)

288. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70743 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 8:11 pm

BONZAI!!!!!

You hit it RIGHT on the head.

289. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70740 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Mitchell, I hear you... I think you have a solid way of thinking about the larger issues... Where we differ is merely in the trifling details.

Ksskidude, I hear you as well... The stories I have heard from people I know who taught in KS are scary. A place where creationism is the NORM sounds, to my Northern ears, like something out of the foreign affairs section of the newspaper.

Oh, and by the way, for those of you questioning what I am personally doing RIGHT NOW to "consciousness raise" for atheism... I am a radio DJ for a campus radio station here in the greater Toronto area, and I am currently working on a philosophy/science/music program that will run 3 hours a week and be broadcast both in my area and on the internet.

I will post a link to the show in the RD forums when it gets set up so you can listen in.

Of course the discussion topics will include religion, faith, God (these are three separate issues), but also biology, education, neurology, physics, ancient philosophy, skepticism...

Oh, and the music will be awesome too (and related to the discussion for each show).

Just throwing that out there for those of you who think I might be an apathetic ivory-tower "Geistesmensch". (this is the ACTUAL German word for intellectual, but if you do some fun wordplay it can be literally translated as "Ghost of a man". LOL)

290. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70736 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 7:40 pm

No. And I have no time for it at the moment (I also find politics, sociology, and economics all vulgar in the worst way), but needless to say, I don't think a staffer at the New Yorker is capable of making that argument work, true though it may be.

In any case, though I am NOT a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy... I am essentially the embodied character of Howard Roark. It's uncanny, but there you have it.

I expect insults should follow.

291. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70731 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 7:18 pm

USA_Limey, you are correct in several of your observations...

However, as I mentioned to Zaphod in a PM, I'm actually not averse to "grass-roots" stuff at all.

What I am averse to is this vapid atheist proselytizing by people who just want "more people!" as opposed to simply caring about the truth... and their invective ridden, bullshit laden, irascible, stench-ridden, cantankerous diatribes TOWARD non-public figures.

That is disgusting.

Yes, I used the term "idiots" in general to refer to people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. It is a mildly offensive term, but not so bad, all things considered...

I think any "idiot" can better themselves through education.

Not through bandwagon jumping and politique-esque campaigns that goad them into joining a "cause".

Perhaps in the end I am just anti-democratic.

Goes with the ivory-tower territory though, doesn't it?

292. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70726 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 7:04 pm

With regard to Ksskidude's question, yes of course I have... All day long every day when I went to a Catholic highschool by my own choice because this particular school had better educational standards than the public school I was allotted to attend. It soon became apparent that of the more intelligent members of said school (perhaps the top 15%, say) nearly all of them were either atheist or agnostic (and the latter is simply logically valid atheism).

In fact, most religious people here in Canada feel more trodden on by secular values than vice versa. (Just ask any Ontario Catholic!).

Of course they're just being childish and pissy.

It looks, from your username, ksskidude, that you hail from Kansas?

That may explain our differing view on the matter.

I feel for you. And I encourage you to fight the good fight down there, if that is where you're from. (I have heard from some professors who had the sheer "pleasure" of teaching at one of your "amazing" universities... I admit, there it really is pretty sad).

But the rest of the world is not like KS. Most large urban centers (Toronto, New York, LA, Melbourne, London, etc) have no overwhelming religious majority, and atheism is not even an issue... if you walked around with a sandwich-board all day proclaiming you were an atheist... people would just ignore you... they don't care because many of them are too!

LOL.

293. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70710 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Spinoza I for one would like to know what you have done to help change the religous strangle hold that is on America?

I am studying for my Ph.D. That is what I am doing.

I will be one less philosopher who believes (irrationally) in God.

And anyway, I'm not American.

To ask me what I have done would have been like asking A.C. Grayling what he had done BEFORE he published his doctoral dissertation, established his reputation, and went on to write pop-philosophy books, some of which belie his atheism and anti-religious sentiment.

However, I am not defined by my atheism. Perhaps that is part of the problem here. Many of you have made your lack of belief in God a dominant character trait... and that just seems silly to me.

Dawkins certainly hasn't done that... he just wrote a book, did the promotional tour, and a few TV specials.

He's moved on to irrationality in the health-system now, while many of you are still obsessing over how to make the whole world reject what they see as something deeply tied to their culture, heritage, family, and communities. (I mean here that they SEE IT that way, not that it actually is that way).

In any case, I'm not impressed by any of this at all.

We shall see in a few years if I join Harris or Dennett, or Dawkins on a podium somewhere (perhaps I will deign to let you all know who I really am at that point), but until such time, the question "What have YOU done?" is folly.

Most people don't even know this site exists, nor the Rational Response Squad.

294. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70709 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Hmmm, so a Spinoza scholar shouldn't use the name Spinoza for an online handle...

That's quite odd.

295. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70696 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 4:13 pm

You are the epitome of elitism.

You're right! I already admitted as much.

Since when did elitism in intellectual circles become an insult?

The intellectuals ARE the elite minds. I'd rather not get into a tit-for-tat with anyone about credentials... but Dawkins, Dennett, Grayling (and Harris soon) are ALREADY the elite! Most of us haven't done one-fiftieth of the reading those men have done... or one-hundredth of the writing (at least not on their level... how many of us plebes have published under OUP?).

To operate on the pretense that atheism isn't elitist is silly. Of course it is... and it damned-well should be!

No one needs to be told that Kent Hovind is a fucktard.

WE ALL KNOW IT ALREADY.

The only people who don't know are people who either haven't heard of him, or are already enraptured (pun intended) with him.

If you want to show people on Youtube that atheism is right, or that religion is detrimental (these are TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, by the way... some of you fail to separate them)... then it is far better to present accessible, positive, well-written pieces that are rather like the written Dawkinsian "editorial-style" or "review-style" pieces that we often see posted to this site.

If you are distressed about Kent Hovind, present your case without attacking the man (ad hominem!)... present the truth.

We could use far less emotion and far more logic... I dare say.

To paraphrase a well known talk-show host responding to Bill O'Reilly:

"Loud does not equal right."

296. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70683 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Hitchens is so much more erudite in his blunt veracity than anyone from the RRS.

It's not even a fair comparison.

There is a difference between a bald insult, and an insult you can back up with argument.

297. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70675 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 2:55 pm

What am I doing here?

I'm an atheist and I like Richard Dawkins.

I didn't know this site was just for sheep (thanks for pointing out what I was thinking already, Zaphod!)

It says "RichardDawkins.net : The Official Richard Dawkins Website". Not "RichardDawkins.net : The Official Headquarters for Devotees of Richard Dawkins' Brand of Proselytizing Atheism"

All this talk of "getting people on our side" is laughable when people who were already on board are alienated by simple-mindedness and rhetoric that they had striven to remove themselves from in the first place.

Indeed, you may be right oxytocin (great name by the way), I haven't made a post in the forums in months, and I generally only post on articles where someone has said something so subtly stupid that it begs for correction.

Otherwise, I come here to read the latest articles on science, and the Christopher Hitchens videos... and think that the majority of people who post here are mental peons, whether they believe themselves to be or not. (this is my pro-ivory-tower mentality and I stick by it, I think it better to be ivory-tower-worthy than a pig in Zen).

There are quite probably many people here who agree with me. I know I have had interesting discussions with Russell Blackford (whom I never did end up getting in correspondence with about the Simon Blackburn ethical stuff... but I just don't have time at the moment), and several others (I rather like Quine, the philosopher and the member of this site!).

So it can't just be me who finds certain members of this site irascible.

Irascible BEYOND BELIEF.

298. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70664 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Ultraviolet G, I agree.

From the moment I came to this website I noticed that there are some very knee-jerk, very angry people who frequent this site, and there is not much that can be done to avoid them.

I have gotten into it with Yorker once before, as I recall, and it was quite silly then too.

So this time around, I expected it to go badly (hence my "castigate me now" comment in my original post).

My criticisms remain though.

If all you care about is "getting people to OUR side." then fine... but that can be done easily with repetitive and easily memorable slogans, TV-ads, easy-to-read pop-culture phenomena books like The God Delusion or Letter To A Christian Nation.

The Rational Response Squad is not really going to convince anyone to "join OUR cause"... they're just going to convince people to get a free DVD, or bandwagon jump until they get tired of it.

The only thing that can convince people to actually BE an atheist, and to support the right to be atheist in places were it is being beaten down, is the truth.

No door-to-door vacuum salesman tactics... no kitschy videos...

This is all child's play in the end.

The only thing I've ever seen come from the richarddawkins.net community worth anything at all has been Dawkins' work himself.

Everyone else here seems to be merely plebeians in a Panem et Circenses sort of movement that says one thing and does another. (The Rational Response Squad is silly, and I think it weakens the strength of atheism in a non-intellectual sense, since it makes us all look like we're high-school pseudo-intellectual philosophy buffs, when most of us aren't, and some of us actually DO know what we're talking about).

The only vindicated Atheism is the one which the individual has understood for themselves via the failed arguments of theists.

Anything else IS privy to the criticisms many people launch at Atheists.

There is, in dialectic, this thing called the Principle of Charity, and when you evaluate your interlocutor's arguments you cannot simply say "Hey you just committed a straw man" even if it prima facie looks like one.

You have to give them the benefit of having said something that is prima facie valid/sound, and then evaluate it from there.

Anything else is bad argumentation.

Dawkins and Hitchens and Dennett and Harris and Grayling all know this.

But apparently not all their "followers" do.

299. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70617 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 10:12 am

"Both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in God - but they weren't as clever as Mr Richard Dawkins. Thank you Mr Dawkins for leading us on to the shining path of atheism - that godless religion that gave us the gulags and the 'great leap forward'."

R Smith , Manama , Bahrain

I am so tired of people saying that Einstein believed in "God".

WHAT GOD?!

The answer is Spinoza's.

And that "god" is no God any theist purports to believe in.

It's the exact opposite.

For 300 years Spinozists were castigated and abhorred and railed against for being "Atheistic, Nihilistic and Fatalistic."

And ya know, two out of the three are true. (Spinoza's work when understood well is the opposite of nihilistic).

And Einstein was a Spinozist, not a theist.

People need to be reminded over and over that their "God" is not their brother's "God".

When people use that word they mean quite possibly an infinite number of different things.

Einstein meant an infinite natural universe that expresses itself via natural laws.

That is not the God of any theist I know (except MAYBE some process theologians... but they're barely theists anyway :P)

300. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70614 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 10:01 am

From Yorker: "They annoy me too, but I'll refrain from calling you one..."

How childish. You're not going to get far with this sort of pseudo-witty remark.

You are exactly the sort of moron that makes large parts of the "Atheist Movement" (whatever the hell that is) look completely ridiculous in the eyes of most people (and it does, especially to intelligent atheists).

To say that the psychology of the "new atheist" is irrelevant (which is exactly what you've done), is to ensure the continued marginalization of atheism as an intellectually satisfying position.

To make atheism a "cause" rather than simply a fact is to marginalize it a priori.

I am ALL for fighting the intrusion of religion into matters where it does not belong, but proselytizing should remain firmly in the religious camp and stay the hell away from my atheism.

Perhaps YOU don't get it. You seem to care more about "winning friends" and getting people on "your side" than you do about being capable of proving your case.

And all this nonsense about it being no time for "elitism" is complete nonsensical double-talk... Of course you're all ELITIST... you think that people OUGHT to be a part of YOUR group because YOUR group is the right one.

That's nothing if not elitist.

Atheism is true, on this we all agree. There is no God.

And yes, if a religio-political issue arises that needs to be addressed, it is certainly helpful to have more people on your side.

And yes, the truth matters, and we should make people aware of the fact that their beliefs are false.

But you don't do that by proselytizing. Why do you think people slam doors on the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons?! Because it's a despicable, abhorrent, ugly tactic to take your fight door to door. It's the salesman mentality that puts me off.

The truth does not need salesmen, it provides its own vindication.

We are merely needed to provide the path to it.

Not to coerce, or to prod, but to be CONSISTENT, and think rationally, and critically.

Does no one think that the methods of atheist camaraderie and interaction with everyone else need to be hashed out RATIONALLY? That is, why is it enough that our god-believe is rational (that is, follows the logic to the non-assent to any unproven existential claim for the existence of a deity)... To be truly rational we should be considering whether our actions "in the name of the Truth" follow, given our desired conclusion.

And I just think this thread of dialectic, and this article, are perfect examples to illustrate why I think we could use a few less idiots in the atheist "camp". So to speak.

To quote Corky Romano: "You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar." :-)