that they have rationally decided does not "exist".

It's not even possible to say, TTE, "There is no support for the existence of God" because you still have to imagine something, then find no support for what you've imagined in order to say even that little tiny bit.

"The only non-faith-based position is that of the agnostic."

Agnosticism isn't a pure belief unto itself, it's often alloyed with other belief one way or another on the existence of a god or gods.

I am a strong advocate for agnosticism as a stand alone position and not just a modifier.

IMHO, the stance that it can only be used as a modifier is an attempt to have people sign up for one team or the other and primarily used by anti-theists who wish to make the semantic argument that those that call themselves agnostic are really just cowardly atheists.

There are many who refer to themselves as neither atheist nor theist. For them, god is often just not an issue and they are content with saying that they just don't know.

And how people refer to themselves doesn't really matter that much, the majority of Americans if asked will tell you they are "conservative" while often holding a set of opinions that are quite liberal. This is due to the deliberate demonification of the term liberal over the last thirty plus years.

The same happens with atheism, it takes a fairly strong personality to claim a label for yourself that is so roundly and obviously hated by so many, much easier on the psyche just to be an agnostic.

existence of a god or gods.

I think it may be similar to sexuality. Some people are straight, some people are GLBT, some people don't really identify as either and may consider themselves asexual.

I do agree that when you are in the minority group, it does take courage to stand up to your convictions and state clearly who you are, but that doesn't mean that people that don't do it are just cowardly. It may only mean that they don't really have a conviction.

And it is not necessarily easier on the psyche. There are always warriors among us who's psyches are most soothed by conflict or even by victimization.

So, again, I reject completely the argument that agnosticism is not a position on it's own.

I hope you are having a loving and peaceful day, fumesucker.

I am in that stage with grown children and no grandchildren (yet). Not complaining mind you, but I do look forward to the time when there are children in my life again.

In the meantime, I am resisting the urge to replace them with dogs, lol.

We also did our Christmas earlier. A big one with all the kids on Thanksgiving and another with close parental units over the weekend.

Today we go to a friends for a kosher celebratory dinner.

I do love this time of year.

The youngest.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=280x50833

The eldest with her dad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=280x49450

Children add a different perspective, they are seeing things with fresh eyes that don't have all our preconceptions. By the time you get to grandkids you are usually pretty set in your ways and the fresh perspective can be even more jolting.

The one in the pictures looks sweet but is actually kind of an impish terror, honors student, favorite subject math and an accomplished tease who instinctively seems to know everyone's weak spots. We get along really well but I pity the poor bastard that has to compete with her.

I suppose it might be considered wrong of me to encourage her antisocial behavior.

I am sure that my husband would appreciate your pity, lol.

Encourage away, Fumesucker. I turned out ok, but I can be a handful!

named Sophie - a rescue. Had dachshunds all my life.

Those are some precious ones you got there

There was a very similar argument in the LGBT community a few years back about the "B." Bisexuals, according to some, were just cowardly gays or lesbians who didn't have the guts to come out. Fortunately, the more tolerant usage prevailed, and it's recognized that there really are people who can be attracted to either their own or the opposite sex, even that some fall squarely into a group that can be equally attracted to both. It's usually better to allow people to define themselves, rather than try to force one's own perceptions (or hopes) onto them.

And yes, there are people who desperately want to be martyrs. They're almost always disappointed.

take that position, though it has become much less common.

I totally agree with allowing people to define themselves. Nothing galls me quite as much in this group as when someone tells me what I am (and then usually demands that I defend it, lol).

Nothing galls me quite as much in this group as when someone tells me what I am (and then usually demands that I defend it, lol).

The same assumptions are made of me. The premise seems to be that if I don't think like they do, I must be one of *them*, despite any evidence to support it.

Talk about irrational!

and life experience.

If someone told me that the was a city named Alberta in Canada, I'd have to take it on faith that there is, as I've never been there. Now there are qualifiers as to whether belief in this 'Alberta' is rational - 1) I know someone who is from there and can describe it very well, 2) I can match those descriptions with photos and articles, from and about, said 'Alberta' in a large variety of credible sources that can be cross-referenced and are trustworthy. 3 ) If I wish, I can book a ticket and fly to the spot I can pin point on a map. and 4) I have been to many cities and the concept of there being yet another one called 'Alberta', in my life experience, doesn't seem too far fetched and is, in my mind, well within the realm of possibility.

Now if someone told me that there is a colony of pandas living on Saturn I would, again, have to take it on pure faith. However, this is where the above referenced qualifiers come in. As I've never been to Saturn or seen detailed pictures of the surface of Saturn that depict pandas I cannot say, without a doubt, that there are no pandas living on Saturn but, given everything I've learned and what I know about evolution, the solar System, astronomy, pandas, the atmosphere on Saturn and interplanetary travel (just from elementary school) and my (relatively limited, on a Galactic level) life experience I'd have to come to the conclusion that there are no pandas on Saturn.

If someone really expected me to believe there were pandas on Saturn, the amount of evidence they would have to produce would have to prove, beyond a doubt, that these pandas did exist.

That is the difference.

How much does one need to say the something is within the realm of possibility? If a majority of the world's population tells you that they hold a personal beliefs which are similar (there is a god or gods) and many, many claim to have had personal experiences with that god, does that make it possible?

Again, the difference here is that the majority of the world's population is not going to tell you that there are pandas on saturn. If they did, I would say that it is well within the realm of possibility, whether you have the kind of evidence you require or not.

the world was flat and it revolved around the sun.

When it comes to facts, the number of people who don't believe in them is irrelevant. The proof is what counts.

was flat and revolved around the sun.

This article is not about facts. No one has facts about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods.

This article is about whether belief is rational or irrational.

I think he makes an excellent case for it being rational.

Because although because, despite being the middle ground, agnostics are actually a class of the group "atheist". The position is nuanced but clear; in some lights even Dawkins can be classed as an agnostic, he admits he cannot be absolutely certain there is no God.

What can be said is that the interventionist god of the Abrahamic tradition does not exist because He does not intervene

Those that feel that they "know" with certainty what is and what isn't. They are the same, imo.

But I do agree that when pressed, most from either side will admit to a degree of agnosticism, and in those cases, agnostic becomes an adjective.

But I refuse to accept the concept, which appears to have come from Dawkins, that agnosticism is not a position in it's own right. Again, I maintain that he takes that position so he can conclude what you say - those that declare themselves agnostics are really just cowardly atheists (and therefore, on his team).

By refusing to use the proper definition of agnosticism, you are creating your OWN "team" - excluding those vicious absolute atheists and theists that you claim exist so you have your perfect triangulation scenario. There you are in the sensible middle, where you can feel superior to everyone else.

But I have met others that take it a step further up.

In fact, there was a poll in the A/A group here sometime in the past year where several members ranked themselves as absolutists.

They are fundamentalists, just like some religionists, imo.

hence why I called you out on such, there is NO equivalence to fundamentalists of any religion, any comparison is inaccurate, bigoted, and spiteful.

Show me any prominent atheists who blamed religion for the school shootings in Newtown? Show me any prominent atheists who call for the death or subjugation of any people, show me evidence that they are just like religious fundamentalists, or shut the fuck up about it.

Well done.


10 bucks says you don't get a response.

She wished death on Dawkins, because she doesn't like his attitude. Doesn't get much more bigoted or despicable than that.

Um, well? Back over the past century Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chinese in Tibet, all of Eastern Europe, South Asia, etc. Yes, there is really no difference. Some do, some don't.

And I don't think it can be said that all religious fundamentalists call for death or subjugation.

As an atheist I am offended by that.

Thanks!

You searched the whole Internet, and confirmed that nowhere has Dawkins said "religion is the root of all evil" or "religion is the cause of most wars".

Thanks for proving that our little friend above was just pulling shit out of his ass, ruggie.

I see you are ever the concrete literalist, scottie.

The shit coming out of the ass here is Dawkins'. If you want to wallow in it and defend it, be my guest.

I guess it would be silly to expect you to provide exact quotes of Dawkins saying "religion is the root of all evil" or "religion is the cause of most wars". Or quotes using most of those words. Or quotes having a specific meaning remotely resembling those claims. But you couldn't provide any of those. You provided quotes showing that Dawkins thinks religious belief is not harmless, but can be very dangerous, since it can motivate people to do great evil, something not even the most brain-dead and brainwashed apologists on this board would disagree with (one hopes). Maybe in your little fantasy world, that's equivalent to saying that "religion is the root of all evil", but nowhere else.


And yes, we know you have a burr up your ass about Dawkins, ruggie...but he's more concerned with what all those little boys raped by Catholic priests had up theirs than you seem to be, so if that's being an asshole, I'll take that over you any day.

This was the statement:

Your post 203 was in direct response to trotsky's post 188, which said:

Could you provide the exact quotes where Dawkins has said those things?. And you said "here you go"

Trotsky's request was for quotes to back up specific claims in post 182, not just some general statement that Dawkins doesn't like religion, so your whole argument is just more horseshit.

And dude, what you cited above WERE Dawkins exact words, except for the fact that you edited our the more uncomfortable parts. Trotsky never claimed they weren't, and everyone but you can see that.

Every time I think you can't get more lame, transparent and intellectually dishonest, you surpass yourself. Have fun in your fantasy world.

Dawkins an antireligious bigot. Your defense of it by parsing is pathetic.

to show just that!

"The Root of All Evil" was a TV series hosted by Lewis Black. "The Root of All Evil?" was a TV documentary hosted by Richard Dawkins. The punctuation mark is the difference between a declarative statement and conjecture.

Are you claiming that the title was declarative the way it was worded?

I think I may have seen it before. Same old thing, mostly, only this time he's mostly arguing against the indoctrination of children. I just watched through the scene with the rabbi. As usual, Dawkins is polite and soft-spoken, but gets labeled as a fundamentalist for daring to question.

...a decision which Dawkins complained about, himself. He wanted to call the documentary The God Delusion, just like his book that was released the same year, but the one concession the producers were willing to make was the addition of the question mark to the title, in fact. Dawkins has even stated, "Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything."

Edited to add: when the documentary was rebroadcast in 2010, the title was changed to Dawkins' choice, The God Delusion.

with facts.

Do we suppose he'll respond, now that his whole argument has been blasted to smithereens (Not to mention that of the person HE was rushing to the defense of?). Don't hold your breath.

What gives?

hell, even many religious people would agree with that comment.

Help me out here. You provided an excerpt that you claimed contained the quote in question. Where is it?

Would people please stop criticizing Dawkins based on bullshit he never said?

Rationalists have not "decided" there are no supernatural entities. What they are saying, and what Dawkins said, is there is no evidence for the objective reality of such beings. Never has been. If the believers can't handle hearing this, the answer is simple: present some objective evidence for the reality of Jehovah, Zeus, Wotan, or any other magical being.

<crickets chirp>

That's my view, but it's nice to hear a theist admit to it once in awhile.

negation, which is a rational axiom similar to what is known as non-Euclidian Geometry or like the types of phenomena that fall under the heading of "quantum".

If you mistake words for absolutes of somekind you might miss a lot of relationships in the phenomenal universe that are quite different from the limitations imposed upon them by the more or less arbitrary hypothetical constructions we refer to as "words".

Not sure what else to say about that.

The author of the HP article has not shown that he is a harangue-victim of Richard Dawkins or anyone else.

a GOOD thing, so harangue on, Mr. Dawkins.

It was not rational in the given sense. Nor was it an act of faith in the given sense. Yet I think there's a perceptive correlation.

Einstein went beyond rationality to delve into a theoretical reflection on the given rationality. He was looking for an inclusive picture.

Faith, in this instance, was theory in a way. And clearly open to question. And Einstein's theory was embedded in an attempt to enhance our rational take on reality.

Kind of a convoluted post, but I think the bottom line I'm going for is - the big picture.

felt faith based to me.

I could gather the evidence I needed only for the simplest of concepts. Then I just had to take the leap that these guys really had tested and proved the concepts scientifically.

you're making the same dishonest conflation of religious "faith" with other kinds of "faith" that re not irrational. And even if you weren't, the evidence for the validity of those discoveries and the understanding resulting from them was all around you, just as it is now. There was no "leap".

Theoretical Physics can be immensly difficult to understand but to claim it is irrational is silly.

Why would a rational person take something on religious "faith" if they didn't have to?

"Faith" in other senses (which people like this author often try, dishonestly, to conflate with religious "faith&quot , not necessarily.

But those core beliefs remain irrational. Faith is irrational, but a religious framework built around irrational beliefs can itself be rational.

Just don't look behind the curtain.

So they share in ignorance about evolution. If there is "evidence" for god, they didn't agree on what it was, as they had differing theologies. Which one got it right? Which one accounts for evolution?

--imm

It remains unclear where he stood at the very end, but my take is that he thought they were by no means incompatible, but he just hadn't gotten far enough to see how they meshed.

For many, scientific revelations over the years have led to more belief in purpose, but I agree that that purpose may not fit into a human scale or even a human realm of understanding.

That's why it worked so well.

That there was any recognizable god at all eluded him.

From his autobiography:

He had difficulty reconciling that and I think just left them separate and, in the end, said, "I just don't know".

Which worked out pretty well, imo.

I hope you are having a loving and wonderful day, imm.

there is nothing of sexual selection nor of genetics nor of ADAPTATIONS to specific realities.
Does Ibn Kaldoun have any statistical data or dissection images to show?
The depiction of animal dissections in images doesn't seem very Islamic to me.

seems the ideas were there.

At any rate, many believers feel that evolution and their concept of god are not in the least incompatible.

including those of the Lakota and several southwestern Nations, postulate something very like a theory of evolution. According to these origin stories, human beings ascended in stages through a series of (usually) four worlds, growing more human with each ascent toward the Earth Surface World. They also generally hold that there are "two-heart" beings who retain something of the non-human phases and can communicate better than most with non-human species and/or have particularly keen sight, hearing or other senses that fall outside the accepted human range.

I think that often there is a long history that "predicts" the major scientific breakthroughs.

This one is particularly interesting.

There is a lot of myth, fable, folktale, etc. out there that occasionally and by no more than accident or coincidence parallels or can be made by sufficient twisting to parallel later scientific breakthroughs.

Does the story of Ali Baba "predict" the development of voice-activated machinery? Does the Russian folk tale of the Flying Ship "predict" airplanes? Of course not.

THINK, for pity's sake. Just once, apply some critical thought instead of fawning through rosé-colored glasses to people who make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Fine, a god that is indistinguishable from a non-existing god cannot be disproven, by definition.
Such a god is also irrelevant to the rest of the universe.
Even so, pretending that something is certainly true because it has not yet been entirely disproven is hardly rational.
As for the many philosophers you mentioned, all I can say is that intelligent people may be as desperate as anybody else to cling to their personal wishes and biases. Intelligence has nothing to do with it; intellectual honesty does.

this is by far the stupidest argument believers make. And to try to call it science is laughable. Sorry bubba , if you're pushing the idea that an omnipotent little old man is sitting up ion the clouds smiting some and blessing others you need to bring some evidence.

'The only non-faith-based position is that of the agnostic. ''

more bullshit.

I cant prove that giant purple and pink flying zebras didn't shot the universe out of their asses but I sure don't believe it.

who do hold the belief in a god or gods. If most of the people in the world say you have a tail, you might want to turn around and look. You may not see it and it might not even be there, but you probably want to take it into consideration.

FWIW, I don't think he is pushing the idea of the little old man at all. He simply states that he believes and makes absolutely no case that others should see it the way he does. He also doesn't call it science at all.

Hope you are having a peaceful and loving day, bowens43.

The fact that many people believe in a God doesn't help, since I can think of very good reasons why people would believe that regardless of whether it's true. In the end, I think it's very unlikely that any one religion is true. There are infinite possible ways for a god or gods to be, and I see no objective evidence for one scenario vs. another. I also see no reason to believe in god given that there is something rather than nothing - it just pushes the question back a step, since one has to ask why is there a god rather than none.

Here's the deal: people believe in god to explain what they don't understand, and that boundary between what is naturally there vs. what's god's fault keeps getting pushed further back as we - people - learn stuff. That indicates to me that the belief is not one that is factual.

That something has not been proven does not necessarily decrease the possibility that something is there or true.

Perhaps it is exactly as you say - "There are infinite possible ways for a god or gods to be". I think your position that there is no god is as legitimate as those that say there is. You make a rational argument for the position your hold.

But I have also heard theologians and other believers make what I think is a rational argument.

In the end, neither side will likely win, so my position is to support those who believe or don't, and use those beliefs or lack of them to fight for causes I believe in. What they personally hold to be true makes little difference to me.

UNTIL...they want to teach their beliefs to my kids, or make me believe as they do. Which is the order of the day, still, in the USA. There is no evidence for supernatural entities. So why do their believers believe?

1. Mama and Daddy did and taught them to.
2. Their friends do and they want to be like their friends.
3. They feel lonely and afraid and want to be loved and watched.

Mind you none of this is bad. Necessarily. Unfortunately, when all too many people believe they have THE TRUTH, the next thing that occurs to them is that EVERYBODY MUST ACCEPT THIS TRUTH.

academic exercise, imo.

I totally agree with your last sentence, as did our founding fathers, imo.