Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
What we have now is the rehashing of 200 year old ideas, mainly liberal utilitarianism, by far less intelligent and eloquent people. It's embarrassing and shrill.
Just for one example, the atheistical argument that because we have firmly established that physical minds account for all known mental activity, there is no basis in belief for the soul or other disembodied minds (like God) has been developed in the last 50 or so years, not 200. Nor is the argument from nonbelief more than 20 years old.
Further, many theistical arguments FOR God, like the argument from design, have become less and less compelling as the seemingly miraculous has been made explicable. This alone makes "200 year old arguments" MORE compelling as their counter-arguments become less and less tenable.
Lastly, atheism has been made palatable to the masses by simplifying the arguments; it's like you're some old Marxist bemoaning that damn Mao and his Little Red Book of peasantish sayings debases the legacy of Communism. With about the same relevance to modern times.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Seriously though, I don't really think a person's intelligence quotient or education level has ever really given an indication on how likely they are to believe in fantastic ideas- 9/11 scholars for truth comes to mind.
Not to mention that many intelligent minds in history (and present) have acknowledged the existence of a higher being, while many idiots have undoubtedly believed the opposite. Even if this trend towards increased education and higher IQ's (the correlation of which is debatable) were true, there will always be an endless number of dummies in the world.
Interesting hypothesis though, and one I would love to see put to test in a scientific experiment?!
Last edited by Flabbibulin; 11-12-2010 at 10:12 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flabbibulin For This Useful Post:
They don't need too, as the worlds population gets more educated IQ levels will continue to rise.
Ask any genius level person if they "believe" and most certainly your question would be insulting their intelligence.
The higher the IQ the less chance you believe in fairytales!
That's a pretty ignorant post. Believing in something has nothing to do with how smart you are.
Just answer one question. How did the human heart and brain form? Did the god of science create the human body? You must know the answer to this question since your IQ level is higher than mine.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puckluck For This Useful Post:
They don't need too, as the worlds population gets more educated IQ levels will continue to rise.
Ask any genius level person if they "believe" and most certainly your question would be insulting their intelligence.
The higher the IQ the less chance you believe in fairytales!
Correlation? What is an IQ? Who wrote the IQ test? What is education?
Stuff like this is silly, begging your pardon. I have an IQ test at the "genius" level. Not to mention that the test is a load of garbage and is strongly influenced by my social upbringing. Do I believe? No. I don't. But I don't "not believe" the way Richard Dawkins "doesn't believe."
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Just for one example, the atheistical argument that because we have firmly established that physical minds account for all known mental activity, there is no basis in belief for the soul or other disembodied minds (like God) has been developed in the last 50 or so years, not 200. Nor is the argument from nonbelief more than 20 years old.
Further, many theistical arguments FOR God, like the argument from design, have become less and less compelling as the seemingly miraculous has been made explicable. This alone makes "200 year old arguments" MORE compelling as their counter-arguments become less and less tenable.
Lastly, atheism has been made palatable to the masses by simplifying the arguments; it's like you're some old Marxist bemoaning that damn Mao and his Little Red Book of peasantish sayings debases the legacy of Communism. With about the same relevance to modern times.
Is it theism or Theism? Or is it communism or Communism? Is it atheism or Atheism? Seriously, it makes a big difference.
Anyway, I am making a point about philosophical or personal self-awareness which is far more important than whether you believe in God or not.
The problem is that these so called "new atheists" have become just as annoying as any religious zealot out there.
So called "new atheists" are so called by religious people BTW, they didn't create the name themselves.
And why are they annoying? Because they're writing books? Trying to get equal consideration? Speaking out against bigotry and marginalization? Answering questions when people ask them? Expressing and discussing their views in venues of discussion?
Really, what precisely is the thing that all the "new atheists" do that's so annoying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
I am not offended, nor do I have a faith to feed any offense- My post is a general comment towards the increasing trend of atheism becoming preachy and aggressive- which is what I think inspired this graph, and inspires many of the religion threads on CP.
Lol, you think this graph is a product of new atheism? One of the first works on Biblical inaccuracies is hundreds of years old. There's an entire area of scholarship dedicated to tracking the different versions of the Bible and trying to figure out what the earliest writings actually said. This graph is just a visual representation. Lots of people have no clue that the Bible actually has those kinds of problems, I certainly didn't when I attended church.
Again I'd like to see the examples of aggressive behaviour, certainly creating a graph for anyone interested isn't aggressive is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
My contention is simply that many atheists have become increasingly dogmatic and preachy in recent years.
Atheists can't become dogmatic, since there is no atheist dogma. They can't be preachy because there's no doctrine to preach. If you don't want to listen to something, don't listen to it. No one's forcing you to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
The religious have never really based their beliefs on science and reason, which is why putting together fancy graphs that attempt to discredit scripture with logic is useless- fine if it is meant to be a rallying tool for like minded non-believers. To expect it to spark the revelation in a Christian of a godless universe is silly.
How can it be an attempt to discredit if it's merely pointing out what is written?
The graph can instruct, can be a point for discussion (i.e. this thread), can lead someone to think and research more...
You are definitely wrong about sparking the revelation in a Christian of a godless universe (though I wouldn't put it that way), I know a good number of people believers and pastors who have deconverted as a result of knowledge of the Bible and its history and content, or deconverted as a result of learning more about science and how it contradicted their worldview, or deconverted as a result of some of the things brought up recently in the books coming out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Seriously though, I don't really think a person's intelligence quotient or education level has ever really given an indication on how likely they are to believe in fantastic ideas- 9/11 scholars for truth comes to mind.
Not to mention that many intelligent minds in history (and present) have acknowledged the existence of a higher being, while many idiots have undoubtedly believed the opposite. Even if this trend towards increased education and higher IQ's (the correlation of which is debatable) were true, there will always be an endless number of dummies in the world.
Interesting hypothesis though, and one I would love to see put to test in a scientific experiment?!
There's an inverse correlation between how religious someone is and both their IQ and their eduction.. the higher the IQ or the more educated someone is the less likely they are to be religious.
I don't think it's a causal relationship though, I think it has more to do with socioeconomic and cultural factors...
You are right in that there are lots of religious people who are educated, and lots of atheists who dropped out of grade school, so it's not a clear line, just a correlation.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Just answer one question. How did the human heart and brain form? Did the god of science create the human body? You must know the answer to this question since your IQ level is higher than mine.
So called "new atheists" are so called by religious people BTW, they didn't create the name themselves.
And why are they annoying? Because they're writing books? Trying to get equal consideration? Speaking out against bigotry and marginalization? Answering questions when people ask them? Expressing and discussing their views in venues of discussion?
Really, what precisely is the thing that all the "new atheists" do that's so annoying?
Well, they're dumb and frankly, getting a lot more cultural currency than they are worth.
Quote:
Lol, you think this graph is a product of new atheism? One of the first works on Biblical inaccuracies is hundreds of years old. There's an entire area of scholarship dedicated to tracking the different versions of the Bible and trying to figure out what the earliest writings actually said. This graph is just a visual representation. Lots of people have no clue that the Bible actually has those kinds of problems, I certainly didn't when I attended church.
Again I'd like to see the examples of aggressive behaviour, certainly creating a graph for anyone interested isn't aggressive is it?
It's not new atheism, it's just the product of the new, easily-palatable, popular scientific atheism which is the new cultural fad. Did you miss my post earlier about the higher criticism? That goes back to the 17th century and Spinoza. To act like it's a linear progression from then until now is just ignorant. These guys, like Harris, don't have an ounce of the intelligence and bibilical literacy that someone like Spinoza worked his whole life to attain. It's insulting to good scholarship and the human experience.
Quote:
Atheists can't become dogmatic, since there is no atheist dogma. They can't be preachy because there's no doctrine to preach. If you don't want to listen to something, don't listen to it. No one's forcing you to.
This is an ideological statement. There is no atheistic creed, but there is liberalism, which is all these guys are. Going back to self-awareness, if Harris had read someone like Thomas Hobbes, he wouldn't be acting as if the stuff he were saying now was all that original. He is a dogmatist because he is essentially repeating philosophy as dogma with not the slightest inkling that he is doing so. Seriously, it's not hard to theorize on these guys.
Quote:
You are definitely wrong about sparking the revelation in a Christian of a godless universe (though I wouldn't put it that way), I know a good number of people believers and pastors who have deconverted as a result of knowledge of the Bible and its history and content, or deconverted as a result of learning more about science and how it contradicted their worldview, or deconverted as a result of some of the things brought up recently in the books coming out.
Atheism on the cheap is the defining principle of the modern bourgeois.
That's a pretty ignorant post. Believing in something has nothing to do with how smart you are.
Just answer one question. How did the human heart and brain form? Did the god of science create the human body? You must know the answer to this question since your IQ level is higher than mine.
Whether the question of God is important or not (I believe it to be unimportant) has nothing to do with how weird the brain is. Evolution, regardless of ontology, appears to be a good enough answer.
Yes I know peter12, you've said similar things before and I've tried to engage you on it and find out more and discuss it.. but I'm tired of being told that more would be coming on a topic and not seeing it, or having asked questions ignored, or having entire threads of conversations just abandoned. It's very frustrating to be told how bad something is, how wrong it is, how dumb someone is, but have every attempt at understanding end up at a dead end with no understanding.
Yes I know peter12, you've said similar things before and I've tried to engage you on it and find out more and discuss it.. but I'm tired of being told that more would be coming on a topic and not seeing it, or having asked questions ignored, or having entire threads of conversations just abandoned. It's very frustrating to be told how bad something is, how wrong it is, how dumb someone is, but have every attempt at understanding end up at a dead end with no understanding.
So forgive me if I choose to not engage.
It's sort of frustrating for me too, because frankly, I can't be expected to hold a graduate seminar everytime I want to engage on this issue. I've provide reasonable arguments, with definable terms and principles, for just about everything that I say. I add links, I talk about authors, so what if I don't link to studies? That is the point I am trying to make, that there is a much larger human world that exists beyond the bland and falsifiable data of the scientific world. That is what all educated skeptics of scientism and the new atheism are trying to say. You don't think it frustrates us to come up against people who have absolutely no desire to expand what they already know?
When I say something is "ideological" I mean something specifically. I can link to more intelligent people than I once again to clarify my point, but people don't like being told that they need to spend some more time figuring things out. That truth doesn't always come neatly packaged in the tidy wrapping of the scientific journal.
When I say "Harris is dumb" I make it very clear that in "biblical terms," he does not know what he does. He's an innocent making some very serious claims for the path of humanity. Namely, the idea that technology and science need to start making more and more moral/political decisions for each and everyone of us. The typical response is something cliched like "well, he's top of the bestseller list so what do you know."
So called "new atheists" are so called by religious people BTW, they didn't create the name themselves.
And why are they annoying? Because they're writing books? Trying to get equal consideration? Speaking out against bigotry and marginalization? Answering questions when people ask them? Expressing and discussing their views in venues of discussion?
Really, what precisely is the thing that all the "new atheists" do that's so annoying?
I was not aware of where the term "new atheism" came from, but I am alert to the increasing prevalence of anti-religious literature and writings- perhaps they were there all along, and simply more in the limelight now because of new media. On the other hand, my opinion may be correct and atheists are taking advantage of a post 9/11 world that has become increasingly hostile towards hardcore religious ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Lol, you think this graph is a product of new atheism? One of the first works on Biblical inaccuracies is hundreds of years old. There's an entire area of scholarship dedicated to tracking the different versions of the Bible and trying to figure out what the earliest writings actually said. This graph is just a visual representation. Lots of people have no clue that the Bible actually has those kinds of problems, I certainly didn't when I attended church.
Again I'd like to see the examples of aggressive behaviour, certainly creating a graph for anyone interested isn't aggressive is it?
The graph by itself is not the issue- but it is an example of the logic used to discredit the Bible, a book of faith, not science. If non-believers want to debate the historical inaccuracies of the Bible, I am ok with it- I just wonder when it is used as a tool against faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Atheists can't become dogmatic, since there is no atheist dogma. They can't be preachy because there's no doctrine to preach. If you don't want to listen to something, don't listen to it. No one's forcing you to.
My use of these terms, that normally have a religious affiliation, towards atheists is intentional and cheeky. It is meant to point out that I often see as much fervor in atheists as I do in the religious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
You are definitely wrong about sparking the revelation in a Christian of a godless universe (though I wouldn't put it that way), I know a good number of people believers and pastors who have deconverted as a result of knowledge of the Bible and its history and content, or deconverted as a result of learning more about science and how it contradicted their worldview, or deconverted as a result of some of the things brought up recently in the books coming out.
Yes, perhaps there are people that have disavowed their beliefs because of revelations in Science- I can't imagine why they were believers to begin with? I mean, Science will always win out when it comes to arguments of reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
There's an inverse correlation between how religious someone is and both their IQ and their eduction.. the higher the IQ or the more educated someone is the less likely they are to be religious.
I don't think it's a causal relationship though, I think it has more to do with socioeconomic and cultural factors...
You are right in that there are lots of religious people who are educated, and lots of atheists who dropped out of grade school, so it's not a clear line, just a correlation.
I would argue that this phenomena is more concentrated with intelligent minds in the field of science, and not intelligent minds across all fields of study- Its no secret that science has been at war with religion, and we shouldn't expect the world's most renowned scientists to believe in a deity.
Look, my issue has nothing to do with the debate of atheism vs. religion- I am simply pointing out the changing landscape of atheism in the world. While one might argue that "religion has been targeting non-believers for years- why not return the favor?", my contention is that this is against the entire philosophy of atheism... but perhaps I am wrong.
Last edited by Flabbibulin; 11-12-2010 at 11:23 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flabbibulin For This Useful Post:
I was not aware on where the term "new atheism" came from, but I am alert to increasing prevalence of anti-religious literature and writings- perhaps they were there all along, yet simply more in the limelight because of new media. On the other hand, my opinion may be correct and atheists are taking advantage of a world because increasingly hostile towards hardcore religious ideas.
Oh I think you are right in that there's more popular writings that self identify as atheist or anti-religious, but why is that annoying? If there's books on crystal power and how to properly cook some weird food and everything else that some people would find interesting, why not atheists?
They should get back in their holes and be quiet?
I don't think necessarily they're taking advantage of a world hostile towards hardcore religious ideas, but one less hostile to non-religious ideas.
Keep in mind that even being able to say "I'm atheist" without negative repercussions from family or work or their peers is new to a lot of people (and in fact is still impossible for many).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
The graph by itself isn't the issue- but it is an example of the logic used to discredit the Bible, a book of faith, and not science. If non-believers want to debate the historical inaccuracies of the Bible, I am ok with it- I just wonder about when it is used as a tool against.
It's not discrediting the Bible itself though, it's discrediting a certain viewpoint and interpretation of the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
My use of these terms, that normally have a religious affiliation, towards atheists is intentional and cheeky. It is meant to point out that I have often have a hard time telling apart some atheists from religious people.
Fair enough, but I don't think either religious people nor non-religious people should get criticized for discussing their ideas and expressing their views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Yes, perhaps there are people that have disavowed their beliefs because of revelations in Science- I can't imagine why they were believers to begin with? I mean, Science will always win out when it comes to arguments of reason.
Belief often doesn't come from reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
I would argue that this phenomena is more concentrated with intelligent minds in the field of science, and not intelligent minds across all fields of study- Its no secret that science has been at war with religion.
Could be, but the data seems to be independent of field of study.. there's similar correlations when looking at averages across whole countries. But again I don't think it's meaningful in the way some people want it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Look, my issue has nothing to do with the debate of atheism vs. religion- I am simply pointing out the changing landscape of atheism in the world. While one might argue that "religion has been targeting non-believers for years- why not return the favor?", my contention is that this is against the entire philosophy of what atheism is... but perhaps I am wrong.
I'd agree with you if that was the core of the "message", but I don't think that is in fact the core. No doubt there are some that think that way, but I just don't see that return the favour message in any of the material. Some may target religious belief as something negative, but that's not out of a return the favour sentiment, they're trying to make an actual argument about religious belief itself.
At least the stuff I've read anyway (which is why I always ask for specifics).
It's sort of frustrating for me too, because frankly, I can't be expected to hold a graduate seminar everytime I want to engage on this issue.
Well those of us without the requisite education just try to get by expressing our thoughts and discussing things as best we can down here at the level we are at, thanks.
Well those of us without the requisite education just try to get by expressing our thoughts and discussing things as best we can down here at the level we are at, thanks.
No, what I mean is that I am often required to give far more expansive lectures than anyone else on here when as I just said, the goods have already been delivered. I leave conversations because I do not have the time or the energy to expend going on and on exhaustively about why I think Sam Harris is an idiot. I write a reasonably concise paragrah with little or no esoteric meaning and I go on. Do I need to go on about Thomas Hobbes, Francis Bacon or others who said previously stated the new liberal atheist argument long before he did with much greater style? I mean I acknowledge them and I give some reason, but what more do you want? Seriously, I know that I have put good effort into my position and it normally just brick-walls. So what can I do to be more clear?
No, what I mean is that I am often required to give far more expansive lectures than anyone else on here when as I just said, the goods have already been delivered. I leave conversations because I do not have the time or the energy to expend going on and on exhaustively about why I think Sam Harris is an idiot. I write a reasonably concise paragrah with little or no esoteric meaning and I go on. Do I need to go on about Thomas Hobbes, Francis Bacon or others who said previously stated the new liberal atheist argument long before he did with much greater style? I mean I acknowledge them and I give some reason, but what more do you want? Seriously, I know that I have put good effort into my position and it normally just brick-walls. So what can I do to be more clear?
State your opinion instead of constantly referencing someone else or some textbook that supports your "point". If you are just arguing for the sake of arguing that's cool I guess, but you don't "deliver the goods" (that's what she said. hey-yo!) You reference texts, refer to some of the greater minds in history, yet you never actually state a position or support it with your own words.
State your opinion instead of constantly referencing someone else or some textbook that supports your "point". If you are just arguing for the sake of arguing that's cool I guess, but you don't "deliver the goods" (that's what she said. hey-yo!) You reference texts, refer to some of the greater minds in history, yet you never actually state a position or support it with your own words.
That's a start for you to be more clear.
No one has "an opinion." We are always referencing something else, whether we recognize that or not. Also, I routinely state my position than back it up by referencing those so-called greater minds, but then I get in trouble for not presenting my exegesis on why it must be so. Well, I can't do that here. Maybe that's the lesson.
Holy crap atheists care more about religion than most religious people do.
Ain't that the truth. If God really didn't exist, why would atheists need to try so hard to prove that fact and tell it to everyone over and over again?
2 Timothy 4:3 - "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
Pretty prophetic and telling statement to make. Being proven in front of our eyes every day.
No one has "an opinion." We are always referencing something else, whether we recognize that or not. Also, I routinely state my position than back it up by referencing those so-called greater minds, but then I get in trouble for not presenting my exegesis on why it must be so. Well, I can't do that here. Maybe that's the lesson.
Bolded point: Hume's golden mountain says hello. Not breaking new ground here.
The issue with you is your attempt at using $10 words when a nickel will suffice. By trying to over intellectualize what you say you lose any audience you may have. But that's just my measly .02, what do I know.
