Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just a random question really.

I have been thinking about the ongoing war in the middle east, and watching some random stuff that is indirectly linked to it.

Here is a link to a Richard Dawkins interview thingy, most often his stuff is always worth the watch.

True evil is right under the surface of where you'd expect.

For instance, take the middle east-A guy pressing a button to launch missiles into a civilian area is not truly evil, Just showing off really. The evil one is the one that stands by and lets him push that button.

I have a feeling that I am going to be insulted because of this comment.

And 'showing-off' by killing large numbers of civilians is NOT evil. Hmm.

Barney the purple dinosaur...
Mick

Good? Evil? Bah, humbug! (Or in the modern "censored" vernacular, bullgak!) It is just perspective.

Good view, btw.

How about the Two Commandments...

Do not dominate others against their will, whether through action, inaction, plan or intent.
Do not damage others against their will, whether through action, inaction, plan or intent.

Evil is humanity. Happy Days!

Evil is MTV.

Pure unfiltered Evil.

Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:True evil is right under the surface of where you'd expect.

For instance, take the middle east-A guy pressing a button to launch missiles into a civilian area is not truly evil, Just showing off really. The evil one is the one that stands by and lets him push that button.

I have a feeling that I am going to be insulted because of this comment.

Because it doesn't make any sense?

Yeah it's okay to show off and kill innocent people. We should all be so lucky.

G

Evil is having grown men play with toy soldiers and having them get on line and bitch about how much they hate the prices and the company that makes them. GW is the Pusher man. We're all addicts. That is evil.

Good...
Bad....
I'm the guy with the gun!

"All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

@Little Lord fuantelroy: That does not mean that they themselves are evil for letting evil prevail.

Evil is a social construct that polarizes a wide spectrum of acts into a single, easily recognized, though very poorly defined terminology. Just as good and bad can't really be defined without a uselessly large brush evil can't be defined. It differs by context, use, bias, and the experiences of the user in using it and the listener in deciphering its uses meaning.

Evil doesn't actually exist. Just things that can be considered evil depending on individual reasoning.




:edit: as an aside, Richard Dawkins is a tool of the highest magnitude.

And I have all the bullets.

G

:edit: as an aside, Richard Dawkins is a tool of the highest magnitude.

How so?

Albatross wrote:

:edit: as an aside, Richard Dawkins is a tool of the highest magnitude.

How so?

He is an accomplished and intelligent man who has taken it as his mission to tear down religion for no reason other than because he doesn't like it. He is the reactionary opposite of people like Fred Phelps, he's taken a broad base of belief, concentrated it, and now rather than discussing the virtues of his way of belief uses the media pulpit given to him to attack people on their belief system rather than attempt to enlighten them. The fact that he is so intelligent is what makes it so toolish. He knows what he is doing, he isn't doing it out of a sense of duty or code, he just does it because it's an easy target and it gets him the spotlight. Even within the interview Wrex posted he aggressively attacks the values people have with an urgency that he didn't sufficiently explain, yet when pressed with the issue of the feather (The feather is actually a poor example, the structure of the upper arm wing is much harder to explain) he simply dismisses the question in a very unscientific way by prodding at the competing belief system and claiming that it's wrong to expect an evolutionary scientist to be able to explain the individual methods by which it's examples function.

He has set himself up (in my opinion intentionally) as the go to guy for the hardcore or militant segment of the athiest population. As a scientist he should be the last person professing atheism, as by it's core tenets it's self conflicting. You can't test, observe, and measure the existence of a god or any sort of guiding force or design, but you can't test, observe, and measure it's absence either. That would be like a string theorist saying that a god can't exist when the spend their entire careers proving that it can.

You can't test, observe, and measure the existence of a god or any sort of guiding force or design, but you can't test, observe, and measure it's absence either.

Fair enough. My position on this differs slightly in that I don't believe in things because they can't be disproven - rather, I prefer to believe in that which IS proven (in as much as ANYTHING can be said to be 'proven' - but that's a whole 'nother thread! ). Not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree.
But yeah, I DO kind of agree that Prof. Dawkins has become something of a 'Professional Atheist'. But why not? there are evangelical christians, christian pro-lifers, radical muslim clerics/suicide bombers, the zionist movement - hell, acupuncture and chinese 'medicine' is even taught in some UK universities (although funding for these courses IS being slashed, thankfully).
Why should we Atheists not have a voice? And why should our representatives not be respected scientists (albeit with a slight penchant for celebrity... )? Some of us feel that our beliefs (or lack thereof... ) are under attack from various religious groups who hide behind 'tolerance' and 'equality' as an excuse to push their agenda. Some science teachers in UK schools are so afraid of being hung out to dry by their local authority that they feel they have to present evolution as being one of several alternatives, depending on the ethnic or religious makeup of their classes. If enough non-scriptural evidence for intelligent design/creationism was ever amassed, then and ONLY then should it be seen as a viable SCIENTIFIC (key word) alternative for evolution, as far as school teaching is concerned.

I for one am glad Atheism has a public voice. I wish there were more like him.

P.S. Dawkins appears on other (not specifically Atheism-driven) types of TV documentary in the UK - not sure if this is the case in the USA. He did a few things on Nature and Darwin here. I'd love to see him replace Sir David Attenbrough on the BBC's nature programming when the time comes for him to step down.

John and Kate plus 8 is evil.

Fair enough. My position on this differs slightly in that I don't believe in things because they can't be disproven - rather, I prefer to believe in that which IS proven (in as much as ANYTHING can be said to be 'proven' - but that's a whole 'nother thread! ). Not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree.

But professing a disbelief of something that can't be disproved is an act of faith. Atheism is self conflicting and unscientific discipline and exists solely in reaction to the established presence of religion. Without something to tear down it fails as a doctrine.

But yeah, I DO kind of agree that Prof. Dawkins has become something of a 'Professional Atheist'. But why not? there are evangelical christians, christian pro-lifers, radical muslim clerics/suicide bombers, the zionist movement - hell, acupuncture and chinese 'medicine' is even taught in some UK universities (although funding for these courses IS being slashed, thankfully).

Heres an example. Acupuncture was not founded in science, however it does have a scientific foundation. The direct stimulation of nerve clusters with hot needles (The heating was mystical in basis, but it's effect is to clean the needles) directly releases natural painkillers and endorphins as well as a slew of other chemicals that have been shown repeatedly to aid with chronic pain based ailments. You can even apply the evolution argument to it, the act of Acupuncture releases a specific chemical set that acts both as anti inflammatory agent and a painkiller that is not region specific in the body (as in it dulls all pain). Acupuncture is very similar to insect and plant stings, and the use of both anti inflammation and painkilling chemicals in response to non lethal venom (as the vast majority of stinging animals are non lethal to humans) acts as an aid to recovery and coping. That was an evolutionary trait aiding us in dealing with the presence of small insects and plants who, due to our size, can't kill us, but can cause discomfort and swelling with their stings, acupuncture is a way of using these natural reactions as a method of painkilling, and it does it without requiring medication.

Athiesm is a religion of intolerance. It's blinding. It's effect is to bleach and polarize all things based in mysticism and to do it without rationale or study (how most professed atheists view acupuncture is one example). A perfectly rational being is agnostic as it acknowledges the chance of a god just as equally as the chance of ones lack, but does not profess belief in either extreme. For reference, simply given the tone of your response, you likely pegged me as some sort of religious or spiritual person. I'm actually a hardcore agnostic (Though thats not to say that I'm a perfectly rational being).

I for one am glad Atheism has a public voice. I wish there were more like him.

This perplexes me. He's a polarizing figure. As most christians wish Fred Phelps would disappear you should wish the same for him. He's an intellectual extremist that bleaches the discussion, and only reinforces the belief of theists that religion is under attack by atheists, and he does it by attacking them. You don't defeat something based in faith with an attack of this fashion.

Please take my post in the spirit in which it's meant - not trying to be condescending or insulting, so let's keep it friendly!

But professing a disbelief of something that can't be disproved is an act of faith.

No it isn't, it just means I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me otherwise. Faith doesn't enter into it. I don't have faith that there is no god - it's just that there is no evidence to suggest that there IS one, so that's my position on the matter. And Atheism isn't about directly denying the existence of god/s, either. That would be a positive action 'for' or 'against'. Atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief. That encompasses many viewpoints from agnostic (technically) to God-denying (I lean towards this, I suppose).

I am aware of the endorphin reaction associated with physical trauma. I also have a pretty decent knowledge of Acupuncture, due to the fact that my sister-in-law is a practitioner. I've even undergone it several times. The 'scientific foundation' you speak of is pretty much irrelevant, as that is not how acupuncture is taught. They do not teach the stimulation of nerve-clusters with hot needles - Acupuncture is supposedly about 'Qi manipulation'. What you described IS what actually happens (more or less), except they don't target nerve clusters (that could case serious damage) or use hot needles (although I'll bet that some practitioners might, granted) - but the endorphin part is true. But it's also true for dog-bites. I wouldn't reccommend them as a therapeutic treatment, though! In all seriousness though, that's just a lucky side-effect of Acupuncture in addition to the placebo effect. But no, they don't stick needles in you to release endorphins - at least, not intentionally.

Athiesm is a religion of intolerance. It's blinding. It's effect is to bleach and polarize all things based in mysticism and to do it without rationale or study

Well, that's because 'Mysticism' is not based on rationale and study - that's why many (if not all) Atheists, including myself, are opposed to it. Y'know, science makes some pretty outlandish claims - but it backs them up with evidence before presenting them as fact. Mysticism doesn't do that. I believe that there is an ultimate truth regarding everything, I don't believe in relative truth.

A perfectly rational being is agnostic as it acknowledges the chance of a god just as equally as the chance of ones lack, but does not profess belief in either extreme. For reference, simply given the tone of your response, you likely pegged me as some sort of religious or spiritual person. I'm actually a hardcore agnostic (Though thats not to say that I'm a perfectly rational being).

Nope, I knew you weren't religious, from some of the other threads. as for Agnosticism, here's a quote from your favourite Atheist:

Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.
Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.

Is this you? Do you give equal time to both sides of the argument? Are you 'A-gnostic' or 'without knowledge'? Or does the weight of evidence fall on one side? Do you find it impossible to choose between Creationism and Evolution? I find that hard to believe.
I don't see how anyone could believe in god/s without being indoctrinated - viewed objectively, there is absolutely zero reliable non-scriptural evidence for the existence of God. No one studying the evidence of the formation of the universe (or Multiverse?) would form that opinion independently, i.e. without already being aware of the concept of god/s.

You can define faith in different ways. For instance, it could be considered faith to believe that when you sit on a chair it won't collapse and make you look like an idiot. Now, there's a good reason to have faith in this result; you probably don't know for sure that the chair you're sitting in is structurally sound, but they almost always are. And if the chair looks structurally unsound, you may discard your faith in it's strength.

This type of faith could be considered different from religious faith though, as it's based on believing what ever is most probable to be true, rather than believing something to be true because you think having faith in it is a virtue, or something along those lines.

Like, totally.

This type of faith could be considered different from religious faith though, as it's based on believing what ever is most probable to be true, rather than believing something to be true because you think having faith in it is a virtue, or something along those lines.

Just agreeing with you.

I believe that 'faith' and 'Faith' are two different things. I think the first is closer to 'belief', maybe.

Ah, I thought you were doing some sort of sarcastic valley girl impression.

Yeah, I've never really understood the concept of that sort of religious faith; it seemed like you could justify faith in anything, no matter how absurd, by saying that faith without reason was a good thing.

ShumaGorath wrote:Athiesm is a religion of intolerance.

That's a bit much. There's nothing inherently intolerant in saying 'I personally do not believe there is a God'. It's certainly no more intolerant than believing there is a God. Now, I'd agree that the atheism that Dawkins argues for is intolerant, and point out that's exactly why I don't like him - he reflects poorly on the rest of us.

Albatross wrote:I DO kind of agree that Prof. Dawkins has become something of a 'Professional Atheist'. But why not? there are evangelical christians, christian pro-lifers, radical muslim clerics/suicide bombers, the zionist movement

Because, when you're attempting to put forth a case for the foolishness inherent in dogmatic proselytism its best to avoid those methods in making your case.

Albatross wrote:
Why should we Atheists not have a voice?

Because atheism isn't a discreet set of beliefs. As soon as it becomes one it becomes a religion. Since, as far as I'm aware, many atheists enjoy openly criticizing religion it seems horrible off base to actively create one in doing so.

Albatross wrote:
I believe that there is an ultimate truth regarding everything, I don't believe in relative truth.

So you're a mystic?

Albatross wrote:
Is this you? Do you give equal time to both sides of the argument? Are you 'A-gnostic' or 'without knowledge'?

Agnosticism only makes a comment on the truth value of metaphysical claims.

Albatross wrote:
Do you find it impossible to choose between Creationism and Evolution?

That question has nothing to do with the question of God's existence. Are you arguing that creationism is invalid, or that God does not exist?

Albatross wrote:
No one studying the evidence of the formation of the universe (or Multiverse?) would form that opinion independently, i.e. without already being aware of the concept of god/s.

The same can be said of the concept of the universe, or multiverse.

No it isn't, it just means I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me otherwise. Faith doesn't enter into it. I don't have faith that there is no god - it's just that there is no evidence to suggest that there IS one, so that's my position on the matter. And Atheism isn't about directly denying the existence of god/s, either. That would be a positive action 'for' or 'against'. Atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief. That encompasses many viewpoints from agnostic (technically) to God-denying (I lean towards this, I suppose).

The lack of structural evidence for something isn't a proof of it's non existence. Take dark energy for instance, while it has it's detractors and its proponents it's not based in a causal or observable relationship. Dark energy is a theory used to back incomplete sciences and not fully understood measurements, yet it is supported by many well learned physicists today. Physicists have created what amounts to a deity of space, holding it all together because their calculations don't make sense. If science can do this, then it boggles the mind that a scientist can vehemently and aggressively deny the existence of any sort of guiding force in nature or the universe. It's equally untestable, equally fluid and dynamic, and equally used to fill in gaps in knowledge. The only difference is one has a bearded face, the other is something out of a 50's sci fi film.

As for the meaning of atheist..

a⋅the⋅ist  [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist

Synonyms:
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

It's not all encompassing.

I am aware of the endorphin reaction associated with physical trauma. I also have a pretty decent knowledge of Acupuncture, due to the fact that my sister-in-law is a practitioner. I've even undergone it several times. The 'scientific foundation' you speak of is pretty much irrelevant, as that is not how acupuncture is taught. They do not teach the stimulation of nerve-clusters with hot needles - Acupuncture is supposedly about 'Qi manipulation'. What you described IS what actually happens (more or less), except they don't target nerve clusters (that could case serious damage) or use hot needles (although I'll bet that some practitioners might, granted) - but the endorphin part is true. But it's also true for dog-bites. I wouldn't reccommend them as a therapeutic treatment, though! In all seriousness though, that's just a lucky side-effect of Acupuncture in addition to the placebo effect. But no, they don't stick needles in you to release endorphins - at least, not intentionally.

The scientific foundation of a practice is not irrelevant, and the cause of a mystical tradition does not carry weight four thousand years later. Acupuncture works better than the placebo effect, it's documented repeatedly, it does that by both having a placebo effect (Just like every medication does, the placebo effect is one of assumed wellbeing, it doesn't stop happening when the medication is real) and a real effect of triggered chemical reaction to a faux injury. The historical intention of the practice is irrelevant. It's use for thousands of years has been to relieve chronic pains, it does this demonstrably better than the placebo effect, just as it always has. If being bitten by a dog had no ill effects and could cure chronic pains then it would be just as valuable of a practice. As it is acupuncture is a cheap and often times effective alternative to what can be incredibly expensive medical treatments for certain forms of pain. If your school only teaches the mystical traditions then you're school needs a better curriculum. It doesn't mean the practice exists in a vacuum and totally without merit.

Well, that's because 'Mysticism' is not based on rationale and study - that's why many (if not all) Atheists, including myself, are opposed to it. Y'know, science makes some pretty outlandish claims - but it backs them up with evidence before presenting them as fact. Mysticism doesn't do that. I believe that there is an ultimate truth regarding everything, I don't believe in relative truth.

Yet the dismissal of mystical practices simply because they are such is both ignorant and unscientific. Your attacking the practices for their foundation while often times ignoring the reality. Through the effects of meditation and training Buddhist monks are capable of a good number of feats theoretically impossible without medical intervention. The direct control of body heat, heartrate, and the senses are still blank spots in scientific study. These practices are not mystical, they are simple expressions of the mind controlling its body, but an outright dismissal of the practice as silly mysticism denies the possibility of scientific study in the causal relationship and further denies any chance of the practice (a practice with many obvious benefits) from continuing. All traditions are founded in something. That founding has little bearing on the tradition itself however, and an objective and rationed review of the practice is what is and will always be required to determine its worth. Not simple dismissal.

Is this you? Do you give equal time to both sides of the argument? Are you 'A-gnostic' or 'without knowledge'? Or does the weight of evidence fall on one side? Do you find it impossible to choose between Creationism and Evolution? I find that hard to believe.

If you had read any of my previous posts I think you would know that I'm more than happy to call a spade a spade, I've been banned from this forum three times because of it. Aggressive atheists are by in large toolish psuedo-intellectuals looking to flaunt their superiority by picking on an easy target, our favorite celebrity happy scientists is one such example. On the reverse aggressive theists are largely sheepish tools that adhere too strongly to a writ of conduct. I am an agnostic because you can't know the unknowable. I think rationally. Thats a goal, not a crux. I don't give equal time to all sides, but equal time doesn't mean outright dismissal. I do my best to learn all sides because it serves me, my agenda, and my future to know my enemy. I suppose that doesn't suit you however. Do I want creationism taught in schools? Hell no. Creationism is ridiculous. That doesn't mean I want Dick Dawkins running around riling up theists so I have to hear them moan about being under attack just so he can sell a few more books.

I don't see how anyone could believe in god/s without being indoctrinated - viewed objectively, there is absolutely zero reliable non-scriptural evidence for the existence of God. No one studying the evidence of the formation of the universe (or Multiverse?) would form that opinion independently, i.e. without already being aware of the concept of god/s.

Under string/brane theory/CI theory/etc theory the concept of a deity is not only plausible, it's actually pretty likely. The nature of that deity and whether it has any effect upon us here is as with the core of the debate, untestable as we currently understand and practice science. However given the mathematics behind the concept of infinity it's assumably mathematically impossible that an omnipotent and omnipresent being does not exist in one shape or another somewhere beyond our existence. The mathematics behind twelfth dimensional hyperspace are pretty difficult, but the concepts are not. They are the same concepts that run through every parallel dimension theory, and they are at the moment the only rational explanations behind the big bang and the creation of this universe. Did a god create the universe? Who the hell knows. Do you know what did? No. As soon as your guess becomes better than a theists than go ahead and flaunt it. Right now it's not, and by refusing the idea all you're doing is claiming false proof of a negative, which is very unscientific.

THIS is evil

ShumaGorath wrote:The lack of structural evidence for something isn't a proof of it's non existence. Take dark energy for instance, while it has it's detractors and its proponents it's not based in a causal or observable relationship. Dark energy is a theory used to back incomplete sciences and not fully understood measurements, yet it is supported by many well learned physicists today. Physicists have created what amounts to a deity of space, holding it all together because their calculations don't make sense. If science can do this, then it boggles the mind that a scientist can vehemently and aggressively deny the existence of any sort of guiding force in nature or the universe. It's equally untestable, equally fluid and dynamic, and equally used to fill in gaps in knowledge. The only difference is one has a bearded face, the other is something out of a 50's sci fi film.

That line of arguing doesn’t do science or religion any favours.

Dark matter is a concept produced as a possible explanation for why observed phenomena don’t match up with current models. The theory will be tested when technology and funding allows, and eventually some modified version of it will be accepted, or possibly the whole thing will be rejected. That’s how science works. It’s how it worked for black holes, which were originally theorised when people took the maths of relativity to its logical conclusions, after which they devised tests to look for black holes and find out if the theory’s conclusions held up. But the big issue is that while it isn’t currently established, it will be tested. There will always be untested theories in science, because forming new concepts to explain observations and then testing those new concepts is how science progresses.

Religion, being a wholly different thing, has a completely different set of standards. In religion there’s no requirement to test against observable phenomena (if it can be observed as part of the physical world it isn’t supernatural by definition). Instead religion holds to personal truths and to faith.

In this way religion has exactly nothing to do with science. They are not in competition, instead they are entirely unrelated. One looks to explain the material world, and the other looks to describe what is beyond it.

Atheism is like religion in this sense, as it is looking to answer a question about what is beyond the observable, material world, albeit instead of answering ‘God’, it answers with ‘nothing’ . And it is testable by personal faith, just like any other religion.