Is atheism a faith position?

[jutl]

Yes, that's horrendous. Still, pre-Islam the Middle East tolerated homosexuality pretty well. So were these pre-Islamic types non-religious? No, they just followed different religions. I just can't see any evidence that it is religion as an entity, rather than certain religions (and certain secular political regimes) that practise intolerance.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Well no, you're right, but I wasn't arguing that. I singled out Orthodox Judaism, the Catholic Church and Islam as being the worst. The Abrahamic religions have the pretext to do so what with the abomination scriptures and the stoning and so on and so on.

It does say something that the Anglican church, the most liberal of all the major religious groups is having trouble accepting the notion of homosexuality as an acceptable practice.

Back to the point- these are all examples of popular credible appeal. Can you think of one non-religious anti-gay group that has comes even close in terms of its influence?

[jutl]

Well no, you're right, but I wasn't arguing that. I singled out Orthodox Judaism, the Catholic Church and Islam as being the worst. The Abrahamic religions have the pretext to do so what with the abomination scriptures and the stoning and so on and so on.

It does say something that the Anglican church, the most liberal of all the major religious groups is having trouble accepting the notion of homosexuality as an acceptable practice.

Back to the point- these are all examples of popular credible appeal. Can you think of one non-religious anti-gay group that has comes even close in terms of its influence?

Isn't the issue here though whether all religion necessarily causes oppression? Aren't you saying that it does? Am I misunderstanding?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Can you think of one non-religious anti-gay group that has comes even close in terms of its influence?

3rd time lucky?

I'm talking about the actual religions of the world rather than hypothetical religions- the actual threats posed by them in our world.

The simple "belief in God" isn't the key to a world of oppression and hate but some of our major world religons provide an unneccessary gateway to those through their beliefs that are in some cases given to them by God. Hardly something any reasonable person has the stomach to accept. The main threat comes from the holy texts and how incongruous various passages are to todays world. Religion doesn't have to neccessarily adopt them but it does and in some cases, quite literally. Asking a religious person to throw the text away and follow a different way of thinking is blasphemous- so we're stuck with homophobia, sexism, anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia until certain religions would like to collectively consider that in todays world they aren't doing anyone any good. But that undermines the word of God. You see the trouble here...!

[jutl]

Can you think of one non-religious anti-gay group that has comes even close in terms of its influence?

3rd time lucky?

I'm talking about the actual religions of the world rather than hypothetical religions- the actual threats posed by them in our world.

Why not just target the actual things you dislike, rather than a category of institution that sometimes displays them and sometimes doesn't? I have no problem at all with your criticising homophobia and other kinds of intolerance wherever they occur. You acknowledge yourself, though, that these things are not necessary components of religion, and are displayed in other non-religious groups. In those circumstances I just don't see why you single out religion.

[Borboski]

The Evangelical Church of England is campaigning to allow church groups to discriminate against gay people.  Because they are a religious groups their views are accorded more legitimacy.  I think this is a bad thing.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

In those circumstances I just don't see why you single out religion.

Religion is the only group that allows these pressure groups to receive popular credible appeal. as I say- can you think of one non-religious anti-gay group that wields a proportionally similar influence?

[Ciarán2]

Just to say Richard Dawkins was on The Late Late Show (on RTE) last night. He was joined by Gerard Casey, who's the head of the Philosophy DEpartment at UCD. Casey is a staunch Catholic and really quite right wing. But he was debating with Dawkins anyway, and the audience got to chip in with the debate as usual. Any Irish 'whores should catch it when it's repeated over the weekend - it was the final item on the show. Casey challenged Dawkins' claim that there are very probably aliens out there in space who are so far beyond humans in terms of intelligence and development as to be almost God-like... It was hard to gague how the audience felt, but of those who commented I'd say they were slightly hostile to Dawkins' views on religion. But one or two people did speak up for him too. Anyway, yeah. Interesting.

[Ciarán2]

Oh look, it's on YouTube already.

Parts two and three are here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5h_P7aBU7E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzAnBTRXQpw

[Borboski]

Crikey, there's a young women a couple of minutes into the 3rd section which just sums up the sloppy way people think.  She basically said that she was in a very depressed time, and religion helped her back into society, and conceded that of course, that in no way makes religion true, but then finishes by saying "It's a miracle!".

[Borboski]

Casey wasn't as bad as I thought he would be from Ciaran's description, although at the end he really thinks that he's caught Dawkins out because in his book he writes that extra-terrestrial life is very probable.  "A-ha!  Where's the evidence for that?!"

"You can't be serious?" says Dawkins...

[Nik Drou]

Just to let you know that 'The Trouble with Athiesm' by Rod Liddle is on C4 now

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

caught the end of it, was it all that shit?

concerning the late late show earlie, I was actually unaware of the Young woman/ virgin translation thing coo !

This was interesting at the end of WIki:

In June 2006, it was revealed that a British insurer, britishinsurance.com, had provided a £1 million insurance policy to three Scottish women to provide cover in the event of one of them having a virgin birth. The payout was to cover the costs of bringing up the Christ.

[DaFuzz]

I think that was the best bit.

Actually the best bit was the advert for the " Animals in the Womb" program.

[Brutus Beefcake]

I spent most of the program yelling at my TV.

Interesting that when Dawkins did his show most of the more respected religious figures declined to be interviewed and he was left with a bunch of nutters, where as the big cheeses of athiesm had not problem talking to Liddle.  Even though he's a cunt.

[Nik Drou]

Well, I've stayed out of this debate so far.  I dont really consider myself religious, athiest or agnostic, but i still ended up feeling annoyed by that documentary.

Firstly, there wasnt much of a case put forward that atheism was damaging the world to the same extent as religion.  The closest they get is Darwinism being the inspiration for Eugenics, and also that Fascism, Maxism and Communism were and are intrinsically athiest regimes.  

Secondly, it infuriatingly fell into the trap of equating 'belief' in science with that of religion, as though they were two sides of the same coin.

Not as thoughtful or entertaining as Dawkins' equivalent 'The Root of all Evil', it ended up feeling a bit of a pointless exercise as i was left still unsure what the 'trouble' with atheism was.

[KateD]

The arguments about atheism being more or less damaging than theism always confuse me. Arguing about which causes more damage is going to have little effect on fervent theists or, presumably, fervent atheists. They wouldn't accept those arguments for favouring one choice over the other - it's about facts (or at least faith), not the sociological effects of their beliefs.

To argue from this perspective is surely for the benefit of agnostics, but can't have much impact on anyone else?

[Almost Yearly]

Casey wasn't as bad as I thought he would be from Ciaran's description, although at the end he really thinks that he's caught Dawkins out because in his book he writes that extra-terrestrial life is very probable.  "A-ha!  Where's the evidence for that?!"

"You can't be serious?" says Dawkins...

And then he says the fact he put that bit in his book shows he's open-minded. Uh?

And his impassioned assertion that he's dying for someone to show him proof of God's existence? Doesn't look like he's attempting a pun or irony or anything there. Just getting tired maybe.

And the reason he might not lie to his kid about Santa if he had that time again seems to be because it gets seized upon by idiots such as the ones he finds before him now. It's "not important" that he conspired to introduce an omniscient, benevolent, imaginary friend into his child's psyche at the most impressionable of ages.

Those three bits I didn't quite get.

[Borboski]

I don't think those are very serious concerns, AY.

On 1+2 - you'll just have to believe him for what he says.  What motivation does he have to lie about his motives?

On 3 - is it important whether you let your kid believe in Santa?   Don't you think that in a controlled environment delusions can be great fun?

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

the santa thing is getting blown out of proportion it really ISN'T important.
What the question implies is there's nothing wrong with letting people have their illusions.

Saying 'very probably' in the context isn't scientific or rigorous language so what's the problem?

But in the case of santa, it's an illusion that we all know will be exposed eventually, so for the pleasure of the child it's not a problem to tell a lie that will be revealed later.
(Unless you have a pretty stupid child or some extremely unlikely circumstances conspire to convince them that there is definitely a Father Christmas )

[Almost Yearly]

I don't think those are very serious concerns, AY.

Ew, that sounds just like him.

No I'm sorry, to me 1+2 are downright messy. Having started on about his open-mindedness, he looks around his skull for an example, finds nothing, alights upon the just-mentioned probability of aliens quote and cites that. But surely in his terms he'd merely stated a literal, logical, statistical fact and as such was in no way departing from his line or being open-minded. And if he's really gagging to have God proved to him, that does put a sort of big fuck off slant on what he's about doesn't it?

you'll just have to believe him for what he says

Ew, that sounds like a priest.

3 was to me the least troublesome.


I hasten to add that in my view he "won" by about 150-3.
.

[Artemis]

Thanks for the Dawkins clips - interesting to see him challenged, and sad that none of the challenges were very good ones, in my opinion.

As an atheist who does fairly frequently have conversations with people I know who are religious, I can feel for Dawkins who must get bombarded by tediously predictable arguments against him, when he says he's desperate for some evidence to the contrary. I am not an atheist who believes there cannot possibly be any God whatsoever, but I believe we know enough to reject the possiblity of the christian God, and the more we're learning about our world and our universe, the less the existence of a God seems at all likely. However, as someone interested in whatever turns up in this field, whether for or against, I'd also love to see some evidence to the contrary; what makes my position more tenable is there doesn't appear to be any.

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

Hold on, it sounds like AY is taking the
"You can't be serious" line as
"How can you be so stupid as to question that claim"

Whereas I presume Borboski has the same reading that I had, of  "highly probable" = seems likely- therefore attacking Dawkins from that angle is ridiculous, hence, - "you can't be serious"

[Almost Yearly]

Nope, I took the "you can't be serious" just as you did, ie: "You're not going to come at me with that right at the death are you." With a side order of "I knew I shouldn't have put it like that in my book, right at the death, why off earth did I do that."

Very probable doesn't mean seems likely in anyone's language, especially a scientist's.

Anyway, if there might be superhuman species out there with powers at least equal to those attributed to Jehovah, perhaps Jehovah is one of them. Eh?

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

Shitsticks just misread your bit about very probable.
so now I get it but I still think very probable in everday language isn't a statistical claim, and just means seems likely. And even if it IS a statistical claim it is hardly a closed matter of something's probability since that only means a mathematical likelihood of occurence, and doesn't exclude anything.