Do you like Sam Harris?

[REDY]

This is why was developed term of antisemitism. Sounds strange though because most of semites are antisemites.

I still do not understand religion. Its so irrational.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, yes, in context. That's the point.

What "context"?

The answer is either "yes" or "no." Stop dressing it up with weasel phrases.

If the answer is "yes," I will expect a link or citation so I can see for myself.

It doesn't, no. But Dawkins' is is a peculiarly Anglican contempt. It's not so much that it's wrong, a lot of things are wrong, but that it's all just so... Foreign.

Foreign in what way? Are you saying that there are no atheists in Scotland? Everyone in Scotland admires the bible?

 

[El_Machinae]

I repeat, "white" and "black" are no more races than Islam is.
It is like quibbling that Jews are not a race when the salient point is that they're being exterminated. The salient issue is that Muslims are systematically discriminated against in Western society, not whether Islam is a race or not. And so responding to a charge of racism with "Islam isn't a race" is a way of side-stepping the fact that Islamophobia contributes to this real-world systematic discrimination against Muslims.

No, pointing out that Islam isn't a race is asking the person to clarify their goalposts to the real world.

In all colloquial uses 'white' and 'black' are more appropriate to a discussion about race than Islam is

Using words properly requires both sides of a discussion to agree to

 

[caketastydelish]

I repeat, "white" and "black" are no more races than Islam is.
It is like quibbling that Jews are not a race when the salient point is that they're being exterminated. The salient issue is that Muslims are systematically discriminated against in Western society, not whether Islam is a race or not. And so responding to a charge of racism with "Islam isn't a race" is a way of side-stepping the fact that Islamophobia contributes to this real-world systematic discrimination against Muslims.

That's absurd. The poor are being systematically oppressed more than any other demographic in the world I can possibly think of.

"Screw the poor." Is it racist? No.

"Screw people with cancer." Obviously in poor taste, not racist.

 

[caketastydelish]

Neither is Muslim, Buddhist, or Jedi Knight.

 

[caketastydelish]

You know I looked more carefully at what Sam Harris actually has to say, and I more or less owe Goodenoughforme an apology. Quite a few of his views are disturbing.

I still think the United States is overwhelmingly targeting Muslim countries. Likewise they hate us. Of course their hatred against us is justified. So I would agree there is an element of truth that 'the united states is at war with Islam' but my solution to the problem is very different than the solution of Sam Harris. Namely, that we should treat the Muslims like we want ourselves to be treated, rather than be a bully.

 

[Berzerker]

Where did you get that idea?

From him

1. there are other religions besides christianity 2. that's up to the individual atheist - they don't have any more in common besides rejecting religion

That was his response to this question: so atheists believe the universe has a creator too, just not the one in the Bible?

so this is the thing
at least part of it

you complained that you shouldn't have to list every religion instead of presenting an example

which is dumb, because you can simply say "all religions"

that's only 12 letters

Bible has 5 letters. The Bible has 8... I dont know what all religions believe, so I used the religious source atheists use most often in these debates. I dont know why thats dumb. I didn't need to say all religions and I purposely avoided saying all religions to spare me the hassle of proving it. You seem to think you get to retroactively make the rules of debate I must follow. I used an example and you decided this wasn't about examples. And now this nonsense.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

From him

Him, who?

That was his response to this question: so atheists believe the universe has a creator too, just not the one in the Bible?

No, atheists do not believe the universe has a creator. I should have thought that point was understood by now.

 

[Traitorfish]

What "context"?

The answer is either "yes" or "no." Stop dressing it up with weasel phrases.

If the answer is "yes," I will expect a link or citation so I can see for myself.

You can link to a subtext. This is about context- yes, context, the context we all inhabit, the context of your country being built on stolen land with stolen resources- and context requires some willingness to make interpretative leaps.

There's an article at Jacobin, "New Atheism, Old Empire" that explains these criticisms. I'm not presenting it as proof, or expecting you to agree with it, but just to show that it isn't something we're making up for the sake of thread-drama.

Foreign in what way? Are you saying that there are no atheists in Scotland? Everyone in Scotland admires the bible?

Historically, yes, too much for English tastes. Anglicans like Dawkins have only a half-inch more sympathy for Presbyterians than they do for Catholics.

 

[timtofly]

Religionist and racist: Sam Harris is both if he thinks religions are separate from each other and humans are divided into races. Taken to extreme with a pejorative context, is any one who thinks their religion (or lack thereof) or race is superior in any way to that of another human. Just saying.

Richard Dawkins believes in indoctrination and as a child was allegedly indoctrinated, so if that is a thing even if he denies it, he is still "that" because that comes with the whole point of being what Richard Dawkins is espousing whether he categorically denies it or not. If one does not believe or accept indoctrination that would be a mute point.

 

[Grendeldef]

Atheists take the stance no creator is responsible for the universe, agnostics dont know but allow for the possibility. Agnostics sound deist-lite to me, and I am one more or less.

Nope.

Agnosticism = without knowledge, atheism = without god... Most people on the planet believe in their own god(s) and not the other guys. If atheism is merely the same position then whats the big deal? How does the atheist say 'all of your creators are fictitious but mine is not'?

As Warpus previously pointed out from atheism's stand point agnosticism is neither here nor there but an optional extra while further explaining (or confusing) one's position. If one believes a theistic claim is true then one is a theist but in all other cases an atheist towards that deity. For simplicity & general clarity agnosticism should be left out from this discussion.

Eh...but theists "know", I dont. I believe in the possibility or even likelihood of a creator... Agnosticism has a caveat, nothing is known about God beyond material phenomenon. That suggests future observations might "prove" the existence of a creator and inform us of its nature.

Theists believe, knowing is another matter.

Theists claim the universe has a creator. Do atheists reject that claim? I'm getting different answers.

Some individuals obviously do but still in general no. The question is ultimately irrelevant from atheists' pov and not surprising since the terminology isn't unified but lets keeping on trying to agree the basics.

Agnostics make no claim about God, the theists and the atheists do. The agnostic doesn't know but concedes the possibility of a creator, the gnostic does claim to know. You were right (was that you?) about the different axes, the theist and atheist form their own. I was under the impression atheists believe existence was happenstance, or 'natural', with no creator or prime mover. I dont have a problem with either option, both have their pros and cons. No creator, no afterlife and no 'hell'. My sins are only relevant in this life. But with a creator, will I be held to account or will my creator take the blame for my imperfections?

Still nope and it was Warpus - I quoted him. The final part is a response for both you Valka D'Ur.

Whut?

I can assure you that if someone came up to me tomorrow and tried to convert me to some religion I'd never heard of before and they claim that religion's supreme being or pantheon created the universe, I'm still going to require evidence. If no evidence is forthcoming, I will reject that religion just as I reject the ones I already know about.


Atheists don't believe in "creators." Period.

I reject the claim that the universe has a creator. It doesn't make sense, because where did this supposed creator come from? If this claim is true, then why are there so many different religions with different creation stories? They should all be the same, if the universe was created by one specific entity.

No, atheists do not believe the universe has a creator. I should have thought that point was understood by now.

Nope.



I would also most likely reject any such claim based on lack of evidence nor do think it's likely that this universe was created but that's irrelevant.
Atheism is a reactionary stance hence one can't be an atheist without a theistic claim and therefore rejecting any possible deity entities even in case we could agree what makes a deity would be anti-theism, not atheism - yeah, somewhat semantics I agree and not helpful in general but this is in muddy waters.

The 'problem' you both have is that you're linking theism and creation - the former is the core of atheism and the latter has no relevance at all. Atheism has no stance or make any claim regarding creation - it still simply is a binary stance on a theistic claim. The logical implications of the given stance depend on what was attributed to that deity but atheism makes no stance beyond the existence of a deity.
The linking itself isn't too surprising given the attributes of currently popular deities but out of deities only tiny fraction of them have been tributed (or blamed) for creating this universe.


In case we need to continue this perhaps a new thread might be a better place - I don't want to hijack this from Harris.

---add.----

That said I'm all for discussing this as it is an interesting topic.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You can link to a subtext. This is about context- yes, context, the context we all inhabit, the context of your country being built on stolen land with stolen resources- and context requires some willingness to make interpretative leaps.

There's an article at Jacobin, "New Atheism, Old Empire" that explains these criticisms. I'm not presenting it as proof, or expecting you to agree with it, but just to show that it isn't something we're making up for the sake of thread-drama.


Historically, yes, too much for English tastes. Anglicans like Dawkins have only a half-inch more sympathy for Presbyterians than they do for Catholics.

I'll read it later.

Religionist and racist: Sam Harris is both if he thinks religions are separate from each other and humans are divided into races. Taken to extreme with a pejorative context, is any one who thinks their religion (or lack thereof) or race is superior in any way to that of another human. Just saying.

Richard Dawkins believes in indoctrination and as a child was allegedly indoctrinated, so if that is a thing even if he denies it, he is still "that" because that comes with the whole point of being what Richard Dawkins is espousing whether he categorically denies it or not. If one does not believe or accept indoctrination that would be a mute point.

He believes that it's wrong to indoctrinate children; he's said that himself, numerous times, so where are you getting your notions?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, atheists do not believe the universe has a creator. I should have thought that point was understood by now.

Nope.

"Nope" what? You disagree with my position, or you're admitting you don't understand it? My post was directed to Berzerker.

Atheism is a reactionary stance hence one can't be an atheist without a theistic claim and therefore rejecting any possible deity entities even in case we could agree what makes a deity would be anti-theism, not atheism - yeah, somewhat semantics I agree and not helpful in general but this is in muddy waters.

I was atheist before I even knew there was a term for it, and then the first time I heard the word I didn't understand it - went home in confusion and asked my family. That was a mistake, since they took it as the insult it was meant by the person who said it to me, and said "Of course you're not an atheist."

Thing is, they were wrong. Now I know it's not an insult; it is simply one of the words that applies to me.

The 'problem' you both have is that you're linking theism and creation - the former is the core of atheism and the latter has no relevance at all. Atheism has no stance or make any claim regarding creation - it still simply is a binary stance on a theistic claim. The logical implications of the given stance depend on what was attributed to that deity but atheism makes no stance beyond the existence of a deity.
The linking itself isn't too surprising given the attributes of currently popular deities but out of deities only tiny fraction of them have been tributed (or blamed) for creating this universe.

Thank you, but I knew that already.

Atheists don't worship any deities or supernatural beings. Only deities or supernatural beings get "credit" for creating the universe. Therefore it's reasonable to say that atheists don't think the universe was created by any deity or supernatural being.

This put me in a hell of an awkward position when I was a student teacher in the pre-Charter days here in Canada. I was doing a two-day session on astronomy for the Grade 3-4 science class (the regular teacher hadn't intended to do anything at all on astronomy; it made a sad sense, as she was into the mandatory prayer thing). Of course one of the kids asked where the universe came from. I had to tapdance my way out of that, since I had no idea if the teacher would accept her precious Genesis beliefs being stomped on and would have me kicked out of the B.Ed. program (she had enough clout to do that, just by telling the instructor for my practicum class that I was unsuitable to be a teacher).

 

[Grendeldef]

"Nope" what? You disagree with my position, or you're admitting you don't understand it? My post was directed to Berzerker.


I was atheist before I even knew there was a term for it, and then the first time I heard the word I didn't understand it - went home in confusion and asked my family. That was a mistake, since they took it as the insult it was meant by the person who said it to me, and said "Of course you're not an atheist."

Thing is, they were wrong. Now I know it's not an insult; it is simply one of the words that applies to me.


Thank you, but I knew that already.

Atheists don't worship any deities or supernatural beings. Only deities or supernatural beings get "credit" for creating the universe. Therefore it's reasonable to say that atheists don't think the universe was created by any deity or supernatural being.

This put me in a hell of an awkward position when I was a student teacher in the pre-Charter days here in Canada. I was doing a two-day session on astronomy for the Grade 3-4 science class (the regular teacher hadn't intended to do anything at all on astronomy; it made a sad sense, as she was into the mandatory prayer thing). Of course one of the kids asked where the universe came from. I had to tapdance my way out of that, since I had no idea if the teacher would accept her precious Genesis beliefs being stomped on and would have me kicked out of the B.Ed. program (she had enough clout to do that, just by telling the instructor for my practicum class that I was unsuitable to be a teacher).

Yup, I was combining the replies to you & Berzerk and trying to keep short; failed miserably and quickly proved how hard to is to communicate accurately but I was disagreeing with you, partly. Obviously we agree on the big picture but the placement of demarcation lines within terminology not quite.

While most if not all atheists reject the idea of a creator it's not a tenet of atheism hence one can't reject the idea of creation based on atheism solely. Lack of evidence is much more valid reason. What I'm trying to get to here is that everything but binary option of existence of a god(s) is beyond the scope of atheism even if it's a logical follow up and/or a position held by many/all atheists. There is a meaningful difference between an individual atheist(s) and a general entity of atheist - a surprisingly tricky concept as atheism doesn't quite qualify for more commonly known -isms.
While the difference in general isn't that great or even useful it becomes essential when getting into details and trying to agree terms for further discussion. The issue is unnecessarily unclear already.

One can be an atheist without understanding the meaning and based on the confusion with agnosticism many are but one can't be an atheist without a theistic claim.

There're a number a creation myths without any deity so it's inaccurate to claim only deities are credited for creation hence separation of creation and (a)theism is important. I don't have to look further than the local creation myth where the universe came from a decently common local bird's egg - no deities anywhere near to be seen.

 

[timtofly]

I don't have to look further than the local creation myth where the universe came from a decently common local bird's egg - no deities anywhere near to be seen.

The bird egg is still the source and diety. Albeit a fairly insignificant one.

I'll read it later.


He believes that it's wrong to indoctrinate children; he's said that himself, numerous times, so where are you getting your notions?

I suppose that if one accepts God, one does not need the concept or notion of indoctrination. Saying that indoctrination does not exist is not a notion. The notion is claiming that it does exist.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I suppose that if one accepts God, one does not need the concept or notion of indoctrination. Saying that indoctrination does not exist is not a notion. The notion is claiming that it does exist.

Why are you so determined to get things backward? Do I have to re-post the Jesus Camp video to illustrate what I'm talking about - where little kids were INDOCTRINATED into the beliefs of their parents, and basically brainwashed to think this was a good thing?

Denying that indoctrination exists is a really nonsensical, irrational thing to do. It exists. You may not have experienced it yourself (although I have sometimes wondered where you did get some of your ideas from), but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen to other people. My own grandfather tried to indoctrinate me to believe that Jews were bad people. Thank goodness I managed to resist that, and eventually put my foot down and tell him to stop - whatever he believed, he believed - but I didn't want to hear it and I didn't want to deal with the hypocrisy. It came as quite a surprise to him that some of the actors he enjoyed watching are/were Jewish, and some of the books he liked to read were written by Jewish authors.

If a kid decides on their own, that's one thing. Dawkins is against adults telling kids, "You are a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/whatever child and this is what you believe."

If the kid decides he/she does NOT believe what the adults say, it's probably going to lead to problems. I had problems with my mother with this - and I was in my late 30s. How is it for kids?

 

[timtofly]

I guess we have something that you believe in, that I do not.

Humans pass on their personal ideology, and perhaps in an unfair way, as Dawkins points out. I would just like to point out that it is a theory, and still under scrutiny as effective. That is does not work is evidence that it may be a concept that people may think works, but is just anecdotal or coincidental at best.

I would dare say that most people do not question what they have been taught. Not because they are being indoctrinated, but life really does not force them to question such matters.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I guess we have something that you believe in, that I do not.

Humans pass on their personal ideology, and perhaps in an unfair way, as Dawkins points out. I would just like to point out that it is a theory, and still under scrutiny as effective. That is does not work is evidence that it may be a concept that people may think works, but is just anecdotal or coincidental at best.

Is there some reason why you prefer to be clear as mud instead of just plain clear?

You're the religious one in this conversation, and I'm the atheist. You're the one who is willing to bend everything into the most bizarre pretzel that anyone ever tried to imagine, in order to convince me that the story of Noah's Ark really happened, or that Berzerker's odd notions about Earth, Mars, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune, and the Babylonian god Marduk have any scientific validity.

A theory is not the beginning of the scientific method. It's what you get when the hypothesis you started with has gone through the most rigorous testing by many scientists, over a long period of time, and has (so far) not been disproved.

What is it that you think I believe in, that you don't?

The video I was talking about is this:

 

[Berzerker]

Him, who?


No, atheists do not believe the universe has a creator. I should have thought that point was understood by now.

I just quoted him, read the post...argue with him, he's the atheist who said believing in a creator was up to individual atheists.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I just quoted him, read the post...argue with him, he's the atheist who said believing in a creator was up to individual atheists.

You just used a lot more keystrokes than necessary, to answer a simple question. This may come as a shock, but I don't really have time to go through your posting history to find out what you could just have the courtesy to say outright.