-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Richard Dawkins: I will not arrest Pope Benedict XVI (but I like the idea)
- Thread starter cntr
- Start date
- Status
RiskyChris
Banned
syllogism said:
Yeah but Dawkins is such a fuckin blowhard.....
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Just to take a slight diversion, this bit from the article amused me:
Not recognised by the UN? Wrong, it has had permanent observer status for many years - http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml
Does not have policed borders? It has a huge fucking WALL all the way around it.
It won't fly.
TimesOnline said:
Not recognised by the UN? Wrong, it has had permanent observer status for many years - http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml
Does not have policed borders? It has a huge fucking WALL all the way around it.
It won't fly.
Oh hey this link ties in well: http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html (not safe for sensitive eyes)
Some people think these actions are acceptable (namely, the people who commit them). I'm not saying this is due to religion. I'm saying this is due to a complete lack of rational thought. Preventing shit like this is what Dawkin's is trying to do. He's promoting rational thinking, which not only applies to religion but MANY aspects of culture. Organized religion is simply the biggest target and the most easily attacked. Therefore, it behooves him to start there.
Co-existence with religion is possible as long as people don't use religion as a way to a) Impede rational decision making, b) Usurp secular law. For this to happen, you would have to remove people as a whole. This is like saying "I promote peaceful coexistence with exploits in games". If it's there, someone will take advantage of it. It's a lot harder to twist something like Atheism than it is to twist religion.
Atheism/Agnoistism isn't really an ideology and thus it matters very little whether you "believe in it", or you think it should be a morally superior position. It simply is a state of mind, like being happy or being sad because it requires no leap in logic (or maybe a completely insignificant one) from rationale to faith. Dawkins is attacking irrationality, using Atheism as a banner.
If you don't care about making other not behave like idiots then that is your business. But you shouldn't criticize others for doing it either, because then you're guilty of the same thing.
I like how you accuse Dawkins of masturbation and then pull this angsty teenager cynism shit on us.
"PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM SO LET'S NOT DO ANYTHING EVER."
Religion is a tool, as much as any other implement used with ill intentions. Take away religion, one less source to worry about. This isn't hard to understand.
I dunno, to me it feels like there would be increased sympathy and support for the Pope in the most likely scenarios. I don't know the man very well, but going by the actions of most religious leaders, even if an arrest warrant were issued, I would guess he'd still go anyway (it's not like the UK is a third world country). And even if he does get arrested, I would guess he would not resist it. Aside from the one, probably unlikely, scenario that he gets convicted for something, he's gonna get tons of sympathy along the way, and probably still even if he gets convicted. It's really easy for major religious leaders to garner support simply by the victimization card. It's almost always a lose-lose situation for the jailors.Davidion said:
And society hasn't progressed scientifically over the last several thousand years while the majority of the world subscribed to some form of unexplained "god" or religion?Halycon said:
Your hypothesis that religious belief represses scientific advancement doesn't hold water. Scientific progress has occurred within the realms of extremely orthodox states. Meanwhile the exact opposite is true and many secular groups and individuals oppose scientific progress.
So where is the proof that religion oppresses scientific progress?
Abstinence or the lack thereof is not a scientific pursuit, and from a strictly scientific standpoint it is the most effective form of contraceptive. So that argument doesn't really hold up.
Captain_Spanky
Member
RiskyChris said:
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.
"A knife is a real thing that does real harm"
RiskyChris said:
I did take a set against him a while back when he was really combative in debates over evolutionary theory with Stephen Jay Gould. Both Dawkins and Dan Dennett crossed lines of scholarly etiquette there. But I like him now. Not as much as I did Gould, but Dawkins is a decent man.
RiskyChris
Banned
Captain_Spanky said:
You have atrocious reasoning. The church is a fucking living entity that goes beyond the abilities of any of its individual members.
Knives aren't billion-people strong multi-tiered machines.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I'm not talking about this Pope case specifically. I agree with you.adversesolutions said:
This is only in regard to a side question about Dawkins' goals: What does he ultimately want?
jdogmoney said:
If I believe something is correct... I needn't make it my life goal to try and prove this to everyone.
Atheism is believing there is no God.
Atheism is NOT a position in which we need to convince the whole world that there is no God.
While the social arguments against religion have merit... let's face it: 99% of the atheist position is much the same as the religious: "I want everyone to think what I do!!!"
Besides: You catch more flies with honey. Trust me. You don't convince people of your correct position by getting on a soap box, berating those who don't agree with you, and acting like an all around twat about the whole issue. People aren't actually won over by that stuff. If you offer your evidence, remain calm, and show respect to them even if they continue to disagree, then they are far more likely to have rational people come around to your thinking someday. Who is ever won over by a kind of desperate and smug NEED to prove others wrong?
This "Darwin's bulldog" stuff? Atheists love it. It will NEVER convince non-Athiests. It's just selfish "I am so smart" posturing... not a legitimate way to get people around to your side.
I have no problem with a blunt book, blunt arguments. But if they don't accept that.. you're supposed to smile and understand. That's just the way the world is. People have different beliefs. Better to come to terms with that.
Captain_Spanky
Member
soul creator said:
Except the Republican party is, I assume, built on a manifesto which is a fairly rigid set of rules. The church and religion is many things to many people. Some use it as an inspiration to paint, some as a reason to become nurses or doctors. Others to give a self-righteous feeling of divine right and to fuck kids.
Captain_Spanky
Member
Halycon said:
And thus we reach the core of the issue. If you truly believe that there isn't much to discuss. I can't really say much to change your mind on that and I do not agree in the slightest. I won't waste either of our time.
RiskyChris
Banned
Captain_Spanky said:
So there isn't order or rules in religion? :lol
Drek said:
No proof, and no necessity. In its place, a repeated, officially defended, and occasionally quite murderous historical tendency. Science tends to discount the metaphysical stature of ideas - that is the substance and action of a pragmatic attitude, which is what many scientists subscribe to and promote. Religion tends to defend the metaphysical stature of particular ideas - that is the substance and action of a dogmatic attitude, which is what many religious folks (specifically and avowedly Catholics) subscribe to and promote.
It's just the way things tend to work out. Unfortunate, but c'est la vie.
It has, but it's faced a lot of obstacles in the form of superstition and naive physics. Some of that is caused by religion.Drek said:
Religion is a set of beliefs about the nature and purpose of the world. Therefore, religion a de facto obstacle of science as it tries to explain the world around us with evidence. Also, I'm talking about modern day religion, not Zeus worship.
You have a point that many secular groups and individuals, even scientists themselves, can oppose new theorems and methods. Sometimes they're right in their opposition, sometimes they're wrong. For example, Tesla, while being an electrical genius, laughed at Einstein's theory of relativity and was a proponent of the "ether" model of space-time. Do you know what the difference is? When a scientist is wrong about disagreeing with something, either he admits he's wrong or he gets ridiculed and loses credibility. Religion, I think, has never even once done this. They always try to spin, to justify, to pit their fiction against fact. In 2000, Pope John Paul did something of an apology for everything the church has done over two millenia. Has it changed anything? Not one bit. It's just an empty gesture to save face.
Galileo and Copernicus come to mind. Darwin too. Falungong causes deaths because its practitioners believe their sick can be cured through supernatural means. I'm pretty sure Scientology has its own bag of issues. Other various cults also have similar ideas. A lot of people use Islam to further hatred and sexism. One can even describe the rising pseudo-science/new age movement as a religion because it's based around beliefs passed on as fact.
Abstinence in place of sexual education then. Also, I'm not sure how a methodology that doesn't work in the most common scenario can be considered effective but okay.
BocoDragon Atheism is [B said:
I wish non athiests/some athiests would stop saying "believing there is no God"
Secondly have you read Dawkins book? There is a section online where he points to covertists by atleast the God Delusion. So there goes your second argument.
Third statement, I assume you don't mean we should be ok with covering up child rape, even if the Pope wasn't involved. So I assume you just put that out there to say we all should get along. I disagree. There has been enough honour killings of family members in my general area.
I know I'm late to the thread, but my frustration with Dawkins as a person and as the seemingly self-imposed face of atheism is that he's just so god-damned arrogant. I'd hope that someone in his position would be much more humble, and I wonder what his true motivations in trying to "arrest" the Pope are: is he that concerned about a betrayal of justice, or does he simply want to unmask the Catholic Church as a corrupt organization? As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the Pope is involved should have nothing to do with it - evidently, there's concern that a large transgression has occurred, and nothing else should really matter.
RiskyChris
Banned
Great more motivation bullshit.
Protip: Revealing the church to be corrupt and avenging a betrayal of justice are both valid pursuits.
gerg said:
Protip: Revealing the church to be corrupt and avenging a betrayal of justice are both valid pursuits.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Chipopo said:
It should be justice in this case. But its obviously a little of column "A" and column "B".
I don't see why Richard is doing this other than to point a finger and say, "See I told you so!"
Shouldn't the proper authorities be doing this. This kind of arrogance pains me that I actually bought his book - therefore sponsoring his wild schemes.
RiskyChris said:
Nice basic reading comprehension. He is saying religious faith is largely subjective to the individual believer. Religion is not a dogmatic set of rules to everyone that calls themselves "faithful". How bout you actually attempt to respond to him in the same respectful manner he is responding to you instead of acting like a smug arrogant douchebag and just laughing at his posts.
Sorry, what's that? Opinion statements? I thought we where discussing science here.Salazar said:
Use the scientific method if you want to discuss a hypothesis that was proposed in this thread.
Here, I'll help you out with a chart.
So lets use your example. I'll ignore the complete lack of background evidence to support it.
Hypothesis: Religion embraces the metaphysical and therefore regresses scientific progress.
Experiment: A belief in the metaphysical should prevent the acceptance or endorsement of scientific theory that does not completely fit with that metaphysical belief.
Result: Both the previous and current Pope have strongly endorsed evolution. This goes against the metaphysical creationist origin and also acknowledges that specific sections of the metaphysical/theological text (Adam and Eve creation story in particular) is nothing more than allegory.
Hypothesis failed. Organized religion embraced a scientific theory despite the end result being a debunking of its own core text.
So one can't argue that simply believing in a religion of any kind restricts scientific advancement, or even attempts to preserve itself in light of sound scientific theory.
RiskyChris
Banned
Veitsev said:
Dude how did the Pope get to where he is if there are no rules. Holy fuck.
He's arguing people are at fault, not the church. Nonsense.
The what of the issue? You mean pros and cons of removal of a potentially negative element of society?Captain_Spanky said:
I think we would be better off without religion. You are saying "this is pointless because people are the root of all problems."
Who's believes there isn't much to discuss. My opposition to religion or your oversimplification of real world problems?
Cute.Drek said:
There are so many ways to do this what shall I do?
First, a parody!
Here I'll do another one for you.
Foxy Fox 39 said:
I don't see why he should be denied access to the law (however exploratory and conjectural it is, as is the nature of much human rights work), any more than I see why the Pope should be immune from even the suggestion of charges being brought against him. (Ditto Berlusconi). I suppose that part of the reason why Dawkins and Hitchens are doing it is to set an example for other public intellectuals to make more energetic use of the instruments of public discourse (the law, the media) to advance moral and intellectual causes. There's a tendency (understandable in some cases, especially considering Islam) to hide in your office, and use 'academic' as a title to disclaim, rather than claim, purchase on the way the world really thinks and works. I understand if people don't rush to applaud that, but I think it's altogether a Good Thing.
RiskyChris
Banned
Veitsev said:
The church is more than the sum of its constituents. That's what I'm saying.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Dawkins is so smug with his extremist militant atheism
Hope the Pope gets away with this so Dawkins wont be so smug
Hope the Pope gets away with this so Dawkins wont be so smug
soul creator
Member
Veitsev said:
The Catholic Church (the institution being discussed in this thread) is dogmatic though. And even Christianity in general does have some rules, even though there's a ton of variety. God created everything. Everything god does is good. People can come back from the dead. It's not a complete free for all, or else the term "Christian" would be useless (actually, I'd argue it kind of is, but that's a separate thread, haha)
Now obviously, individual people who call themselves Christians can widely vary, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an underlying "dogmatic set of rules", especially when referring to the Catholic Church.
I know that in practice, everyone just makes up whatever works for them personally. I'm sure there are plenty of individual Republicans who completely disagree with their party platform. But you know what? The Republican party platform still exists, and contains plenty of bad ideas, therefore those ideas should be challenged. If you're not one of those folks that agree with the actual platform of your supposed party, then join others in trying to change it, or stop confusing people by calling yourself Republican. You don't have to claim membership if you don't want to :lol
Salazar said:
I may be wrong on my understanding of Dawkins, but he seems to believe that religious belief is something which is inherently disagreeable. I don't; I think that lazy thinking is something which is inherently disagreeable, something which isn't necessitated by the few defining features of "core" religious beliefs.
RiskyChris said:
Sure.
But it should have nothing to do with the fact that the Church is involved and everything to do with the fact that a corrupt organization is involved.
Drek said:
My hypothesis (too grand; I'll settle for view) identified a tendency. An exception, no matter its magnitude, does not eliminate a tendency. I didn't advance anything approaching or resembling an absolute argument (almost the opposite).
I think an adaptive mode of discourse is better suited to improve and distribute the general store of human knowledge about the world and its workings. Religion is not so adaptive a mode of discourse as science. That's not to say that it doesn't adapt, but it tends frightfully more often than not to kick and scream before it does.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Sh1ner said:
How about "lack of a belief in God" then? Does it really matter? We all know what an atheist is.
Actually we're not even debating what "agnosticism" is... I would say that an atheist (as opposed to an agnostic) believes there is no God, yes.
But it doesn't matter. Let's not get into that strong atheism/weak atheism blah blah. They're just words.
I've read almost all of his books.Sh1ner said:
There goes my second argument?
If Dawkins has convinced anyone, it's from his very good logical arguments. His "being an ass" tendencies have NOT been a chief factor in convincing people at all. Perhaps there are people who eat up that "I'm calling a spade a spade, fucker" stuff up (like I said: it's usually those who already agree), but there are many, many more people who are completely turned off by such an attitude. For these people, Dawkins' actual wonderful arguments are never even listened to.
I don't think such behavior comes from some sort of skillful compaign to convince others... rather it's the usual "I'm right and I'll prove it to you!" that motivates us all.
Sh1ner said:
As I said earlier in that same post to another person: I am not talking about this Pope thing for now. I am talking about Dawkins' ultimate motivations and methods.
Yes, I do believe that we should get along. That's how it's gonna work, actually! We aren't going to change everyone's mind to the same thing!
And arguing against bad practices: covering up child abuse, terrorism, honor killings... this is not the same thing as converting people from their religions. In fact, conversion from their religion is so unlikely, that such a path is the last thing I would do if I actually wanted to combat such practices. Better to argue against it on moral, social or legal grounds... or if you were clever, you'd use their religious tendencies to argue against it "no God would accept this" etc.
ElectricBlue187
Member
FUCK THE PEDOBEAR POPE LOL BURN CATHOLIC CHURCH HAHAAHAHAHA
vs.
Militant atheism is lame and helps no one on earth with anything, ever.
vs.
Militant atheism is lame and helps no one on earth with anything, ever.
RiskyChris
Banned
gerg said:
...
What's wrong with it having to do with the Church? It does real harm to society (passes the corruption test) so it certainly within reason to target it specifically.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
It doesn't matter though... till he brought it up. Why do we need to have this discussion? Sometimes it's prudent, like when a religious person tells an atheist what they think... right now it just doesn't matter.jdogmoney said:
RiskyChris
Banned
ElectricBlue187 said:
Does every thread on this forum need to be wildly mischaracterized in some black and white fashion.
gerg said:
He's accustomed (his education, his teaching, conferences, papers) to conversing with his intellectual equals. When he's in public, it's a rare occasion when he's doing that. However adept a populariser he isand he's a fine oneand however well he can tune his explanations and metaphors to the level of his audience, he's always having to work at it. That is, work against habit. That effort is perhaps what shows.
Or it could be smugness. God damn, if I were one-tenth as clever as he is, I'd shine like a lighthouse with smugness.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
You know... several times I've watched Dawkins interact with other intellectual atheists in public forums, and they too have brought up his arrogant posturing and how it doesn't necessarily help his cause. It isn't just something that religious people think.Salazar said:
I would say "A lack of belief in God." Soft atheism.jdogmoney said:
He's laid it out in his own book, I believe. So that's open and shut IMO.
soul creator
Member
gerg said:
random question: Are you non-British?
My theory is that the only reason this ever comes up is because I have a feeling that there are a lot of folks who subconsciously associate "confident people with British accents" with "smug" :lol
- Status