Sail, you really don't have it right there. If someone is agnostic about there being a god, it just means they don't think it is possible to know if there is a god or not.
Which goes hand in hand with what I said. Obviously someone would only not be on one side or the other if they feel there is prevailing evidence for either side. It's pretty much the same.
After seeing the church leader in action, doing the whole rock and roll pastor act, Dawkins opens the conversation with (something like) "Well, that was performance the likes of which Goebbels would have been proud."
After seeing the church leader in action, doing the whole rock and roll pastor act, Dawkins opens the conversation with (something like) "Well, that was performance the likes of which Goebbels would have been proud."
Ok, I just watched the opening minute of the conversation, and it was just as I remembered. Sure, it wasn't the opening question, it was the second question.
No matter if Dawkins was right, and no matter that he said the words using polite language, and no matter that he said "Please forgive me", bringing up blatant connections with National Socialism with an interview guest is a dickish thing to do.
If you have any other explanation for Dawkins' behaviour, I'd like to read it. So far I'm still convinced he is a bit of a dick. And this was just one example off the top of my head, I'm sure I could find many others.
But like I said, sometimes the world needs someone a bit dickish to shake things up. Dawkins is doing a pretty good job of that.
You people still don't understand the difference between agnostic and atheist? Agnostic is the answer to a different question.
Agnosticism is an epistemological philosophy. If you recognize cogito ergo sum, and nothing else is certain, then you are agnostic. If you think other things can be 100% certain, then you are not agnostic. This has nothing to do with any god and or gods.
Whether you are agnostic or not, atheism ask a question about deities. Do you personally believe that a deity or deities exist? If you're one of those people who says you accept the possibility of god existing, but you don't live your life as if god does exist, then you are atheist. If you don't actively believe in a god or gods, you are atheist. If you are agnostic and atheist, you recognize the philosophical probability that a god, or a magic teapot, or a unicorn, could exist. However, you live your life pragmatically as if they do not. Atheism is a question about how you live your life, and what you personally believe, regardless of your philosophy on the nature of knowledge.
If you're one of those people who goes around saying you are agnostic to try to avoid confrontations about saying you are atheist, then you are atheist, and you don't know it. If you are truly uncertain as to whether there are gods or not, then look at how you live your life. Do you fear and/or worship a god or gods? If not, then you aren't actively believing. If you aren't believing, you're atheist. Agnostic is the answer to a different question.
I'm live and let live as far as ideas go, in as far as those ideas do not affect me physically. You can believe whatever you want, but if your wants come into direct conflict with mine, I will obviously stand up for what I want rather than letting you do whatever you please to my personal chagrin. Dirty bathrooms with scum on the tub are not ideas. Nor are stinking dishes. Even if I kept the house as clean as I wanted it, you (if I "let you live how you wanted to") would mess it up again and then it would mean I would have to work extra hard to keep it clean.
Kate basically said it best. Irreconcilable roommate differences.
Also, your needs are not every-one's needs. Thus, live and let live. She wants to be happy and she wants you to be happy. Two separate domiciles might be necessary for that to occur. Live and let live does not mean that everyone should live by the same set of rules/conditions for happiness - it means that you live as you like and let others live as they like. She likes living separately from you. Let her and stop claiming to live and let live, yet chastise her for her need to live a different lifestyle than you live.
That doesn't make any sense.
What do you mean? You are accusing her of not having a live and let live attitude, yet you criticize her for her life choices. That is the pot calling the kettle black, if ever I saw it.
What do you mean? You are accusing her of not having a live and let live attitude, yet you criticize her for her life choices. That is the pot calling the kettle black, if ever I saw it.
I'm not criticizing the life choices. I'm actually not criticizing at all. All I did was point out that she was claiming to be live and let live, and claiming I was not, when clearly the opposite is true.
I'm really amazed here that I wholly agree with Scott. Why must we hold our harsh words when criticizing them? Why do we have to be kind when God pops up in a conversation? If talk of an Atheist comes up, they bash them and say horrible things about them. So why can't we be harsh back?
Christianity and other religions are put up on a pedestal as untouchable by normal conversation, but for no good reason. They are allowed to yell down from their pedestal at others, but if anyone says anything back, even the other people below on the ground say that that's bad. It's time to knock that pedestal down. I've been doing that for years now, and I have no reason to change. These people have a notion of a God drilled in their head from when they were in the womb, and the only thing that's going to reach them is strong wording and forceful conversation. They've been trained to not think for themselves.
Now, you might say, it's a horrible idea to be so vocal and demeaning when talking to these people, because that will stop some from changing, but I am of the opinion that people open to normal logic and reason argued in a rational conversation will make this discovery on their own. The rest need to have the screw pulled back out, and it takes Atheist's with screwdrivers, not pillows and flowers to do it. Stop holding your tongue because you may offend someone. Political Correctness can, as a God-fearing person would say, go to hell.
What do you mean? You are accusing her of not having a live and let live attitude, yet you criticize her for her life choices. That is the pot calling the kettle black, if ever I saw it.
I'm not criticizing the life choices. I'm actually not criticizing at all. All I did was point out that she was claiming to be live and let live, and claiming I was not, when clearly the opposite is true.
Even you recognize that you are intolerant. Not hiring religious people? I don't want to open that can of worms again, but you are intolerant. When a bum came up to you on the street you told him to "Get a job." how is that "live-and-let-live". Not every one's house is entirely glass, but we all have windows. Own up to yours.
Let's say someone comes along and says they believe in unicorns. Everybody will laugh at them. They will tell them they are wrong. If that person was joking, they will also lol. If they weren't joking, they will feel bad. The other people aren't being mean. They're just reacting how any normal person reacts to someone else who says something ridiculous.
Think about the girl in Rym's high school class who asked the teacher if there were still US troops in Vietnam. The whole class laughed at her. Were they being mean? No. Did she feel bad? Maybe, or maybe she was even too stupid to feel bad about being stupid. But either way, laughing at and correcting ridiculous idiocy is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. It is neither mean, nor evil.
Yet, when ridiculous idiocy is related to religion of some kind. If the person believes in angels and demons and gods as opposed to unicorns and faries and thetans, then suddenly it's mean to have a normal reaction? It's the double standard when it comes to religious belief as opposed to other belief that creates a protrayal of atheists and skeptics as mean.
The difference is that when everyone laughs at the unicorn believer, the person is believing an unpopular falsehood. Relatively few people actually believe in unicorns. So when they are laughed at, the rest of the people around accept that laughing. But if the falsehood is a popular one, like chiropractic or Jesus, the laughing purveyor of truth finds few friends. They are viewed as mean not because they laugh, but because they laugh alone.
This isn't about a battle between truth and falsehood. It's battle of societal acceptance. Society pressures you to believe what it is popular to believe, regardless of truth or falsehood. If you have the balls to fight for your beliefs, true or false, if they are unpopular, society will call you mean, evil, crazy, etc.
Ask yourself. Is it more important to believe what is popular, in order to be socially perceived as being nice, or is it more important to fight for truth, regardless of how unpopular it may be?
Even you recognize that you are intolerant. Not hiring religious people? I don't want to open that can of worms again, but you are intolerant. When a bum came up to you on the street you told him to "Get a job." how is that "live-and-let-live". Not every one's house is entirely glass, but we all have windows. Own up to yours.
That's not intolerant. Tolerating simply means allowing things to continue. I didn't try to stop the bum from his bumming. I just exercised my right to free speech, and spoke.
Not being allowed to not hire religious people is the opposite issue. I'm not limiting anyone else's freedom. Working for me isn't a right. The government is limiting my freedom as an employer to hire and fire who I please for the reasons I please. Those reasons are not reasons of race, which people have no power over. They are reasons of belief, which people do have control over.
Let's say that I'm hiring someone. An applicant comes in and claims to believe that the earth is flat. Obviously I'm not going to hire this person because they believe crazy things. Nobody would argue with that, and there is no law that says I can't discriminate based on that belief. Yet if the person comes and claims to believe in a magic sky man, suddenly I can't discriminate based on that belief. All beliefs are equal. Why should a religious belief get special treatment when compared to other beliefs?
Despite what it may seem, I am complete tolerant. I allow religious people to be religious. I will tell them I think they are crazy, but you don't see me burning churches, beating up jews, etc. I allow them to do their thing. That is what tolerance is. Tolerating something doesn't mean likingit, or supporting it, or not speaking out against something. It just means allowing it.
Just to clear something out here, everyone seems to assume that all theists bash on atheists (when that is not the case) and that all atheists are dicks and all the conversations seem to revolve around that, when in fact it was only pointed out that a specific person is kinda of a dick. There are no universals in traits of personality in correlation with faith or lack of it. From mere observation yes, Scott you come off as a dick from time to time, Rym doesn't, yet you both share the same beliefs or not? it speaks that yes, people are perceived to be dicks on how they act, not on what they believe.
This does not really affect the question revolving around the fact that you won't pick up your shit.
Seriously? What if two people's wants come into direct conflict? What then?
So basically, I can bitch about your mess all I want. I'm not FORCING you to do anything. I'm just loudly voicing my desire for a clean house. I have never grabbed you and marched you around the kitchen doing dishes.
Yet, when ridiculous idiocy is related to religion of some kind. If the person believes in angels and demons and gods as opposed to unicorns and faries and thetans, then suddenly it's mean to have a normal reaction? It's the double standard when it comes to religious belief as opposed to other belief that creates a protrayal of atheists and skeptics as mean.
You can be nice in your statements or you can be blunt. Both have their purposes.
Some people are intelligent and genuine enough to take tactfully stated points for what they are, but many people don't get it. This Christmas I had a very frank talk with my mother about her habit of buying WAY too much useless junk. It was fine if that was how she wanted to live, I told her, but I do not have the space nor the desire to clutter my apartment, so I left half of the "gifts" that were really just giftbag-filler-quality crap at her house when I went home after Christmas. She got very upset and claimed that she was upset because I was so "rude" and "mean" about it. Why couldn't I just come up with a subtle way to say they were "nice," but I wanted her to "hang on to them for me until I get more space?"
I explained to her that I HAD been subtly telling her this for the past few years. Not only that, but telling her the way she suggested wouldn't have addressed the problem and would have been a lie. She would have kept buying me junk, expecting me to come and take it all home someday when I got a bigger place. She denied that I had ever suggested to her that I didn't want the junk, so obviously, subtlety did not work in this case, and the blunt discussion was necessary. I was not being mean or a dick...I was simply communicating in the only way that seemed to be effective. Many times these people who complain about someone being harsh DID NOT GET IT when the person approached the subject genially. The blunt approach is the only way to get these people to understand your point, even if it makes them kick and flail and yell, "NO! NO! YOU ARE SO MEAN!!"
However, I believe that you should attempt to use tact before kicking someone in the balls. If they don't seem to get the point, THEN a ball-kicking is in order. I'm not saying I follow this rule all the time; I'm pretty well known for being candid, and I've occasionally been rude to people that didn't necessarily deserve it. Still, I think there is merit to the blunt approach and it has its uses where polite tact fails. Also, tact is not the same thing as dishonesty or a lie, so don't start with the "coercion is bad" crap. You can be polite without being dishonest.
Seriously? What if two people's wants come into direct conflict? What then?
Normally when two people's wants come into conflict, you have to find resolution. For example, when deciding what board game to play. You can't play two games. You need to decide on one. If as a result someone doesn't want to play because they disagree with the choice, then they don't play.
The problem only arises when your want is another person's action. If you want someone else to play who does not want to. That's where you enter the shaky territory. Even so, it's fine to want other people to change or do things. I want religious people to all become atheists. Even so, I don't expect them to do it. I won't be upset if they don't do it. I just voice my preference, as I am permitted, and am done with it. If I were to attempt to use force, deception, or coercion to make them change according to my will, that would be wrong, and would violate the golden rule. I wouldn't want anyone to impinge on my freedom in such a way to make me religious, so I won't do it to anyone else. And even if I did use such methods, and they did work, it would be a hollow victory. If they only became atheists because they were tricked, or forced to do so, then their atheism is not genuine. I want people to come to the correct conclusion and understanding in their own minds. All I do is say true things, and do as I please. I expect no more from anyone else.
I want religious people to all become atheists. Even so, I don't expect them to do it. I won't be upset if they don't do it. I just voice my preference, as I am permitted, and am done with it. If I were to attempt to use force, deception, or coercion to make them change according to my will, that would be wrong, and would violate the golden rule. I wouldn't want anyone to impinge on my freedom in such a way to make me religious, so I won't do it to anyone else. And even if I did use such methods, and they did work, it would be a hollow victory. If they only became atheists because they were tricked, or forced to do so, then their atheism is not genuine. I want people to come to the correct conclusion and understanding in their own minds.
I totally agree with you there.
My belief in Christianity when I was young didn't feel genuine because I was forced-fed it practically from birth. I was totally against the idea of atheism and wanted nothing to do with atheists (my views of them were mostly my parents' that I just believed because I still didn't know better) but then I began asking questions about the bible that nobody could properly answer. These questions went on for years and I slowly became an atheist and it felt genuine since I came to it on my own terms through inquiry and study.
I was totally against the idea of atheism and wanted nothing to do with atheists (my views of them were mostly my parents' that I just believed because I still didn't know better) but then I began asking questions about the bible that nobody could properly answer.
I think that's how many Atheists who were raised with religion start out - they get sick of every line of inquiry ending with "Because god just is/does/did/says so, so stop asking."
The problem only arises when your want is another person's action. If you want someone else to play who does not want to. That's where you enter the shaky territory. Even so, it's fine to want other people to change or do things. I want religious people to all become atheists. Even so, I don't expect them to do it. I won't be upset if they don't do it. I just voice my preference, as I am permitted, and am done with it. If I were to attempt to use force, deception, or coercion to make them change according to my will, that would be wrong, and would violate the golden rule. I wouldn't want anyone to impinge on my freedom in such a way to make me religious, so I won't do it to anyone else. And even if I did use such methods, and they did work, it would be a hollow victory. If they only became atheists because they were tricked, or forced to do so, then their atheism is not genuine. I want people to come to the correct conclusion and understanding in their own minds. All I do is say true things, and do as I please. I expect no more from anyone else.
This should be good, if people start thinking about their religious stance.
Even better for the fact that they're now theoretically(With my piss-weak knowledge of UK law) backed into a corner if someone challenges them - They're making a specific claim, so unless they can prove it, they're pretty open to claims of False advertising.
Problem is: Religious groups have been getting around proving their claims for decades.
We can only but Try, I suppose. I'll be complaining to the ASA about the "There Definitely is a god", and I'll be recommending to the listeners of my radio show to lodge a complaint with the ASA - Though, I will make it clear on the show that my objection is not primarily religious, but that they should be held to the same rules as everyone else.
You can't go around doing whatever the fuck you like just because you claim that your chosen Magic Sky Wizard is on your side.
Whether or not there is a god is beside the point. If she/he/it/they has no provable interaction with the world then the actions you take are essentially arbitrary.
I wonder if there could be a lawsuit made because the pro-god advert's design is without a doubt ripped off and therefore could be declared as purposely misleading as to who is sponsoring the ad.
I love one of the slogans they use: "Gott ist mit an Sicherheit grenzender Warscheinlichkeit ein Teschechischer Schlagersänger" translates roughly to "God is with a probability bordering on certainty a popular czech singer", a reference to Karel Gott who became famous in germany for singing the german title song to the Maya the Bee anime.
Comments
No matter if Dawkins was right, and no matter that he said the words using polite language, and no matter that he said "Please forgive me", bringing up blatant connections with National Socialism with an interview guest is a dickish thing to do.
If you have any other explanation for Dawkins' behaviour, I'd like to read it. So far I'm still convinced he is a bit of a dick. And this was just one example off the top of my head, I'm sure I could find many others.
But like I said, sometimes the world needs someone a bit dickish to shake things up. Dawkins is doing a pretty good job of that.
Agnosticism is an epistemological philosophy. If you recognize cogito ergo sum, and nothing else is certain, then you are agnostic. If you think other things can be 100% certain, then you are not agnostic. This has nothing to do with any god and or gods.
Whether you are agnostic or not, atheism ask a question about deities. Do you personally believe that a deity or deities exist? If you're one of those people who says you accept the possibility of god existing, but you don't live your life as if god does exist, then you are atheist. If you don't actively believe in a god or gods, you are atheist. If you are agnostic and atheist, you recognize the philosophical probability that a god, or a magic teapot, or a unicorn, could exist. However, you live your life pragmatically as if they do not. Atheism is a question about how you live your life, and what you personally believe, regardless of your philosophy on the nature of knowledge.
If you're one of those people who goes around saying you are agnostic to try to avoid confrontations about saying you are atheist, then you are atheist, and you don't know it. If you are truly uncertain as to whether there are gods or not, then look at how you live your life. Do you fear and/or worship a god or gods? If not, then you aren't actively believing. If you aren't believing, you're atheist. Agnostic is the answer to a different question.
Kate basically said it best. Irreconcilable roommate differences.
*rrrrrrrrrur*
Christianity and other religions are put up on a pedestal as untouchable by normal conversation, but for no good reason. They are allowed to yell down from their pedestal at others, but if anyone says anything back, even the other people below on the ground say that that's bad. It's time to knock that pedestal down. I've been doing that for years now, and I have no reason to change. These people have a notion of a God drilled in their head from when they were in the womb, and the only thing that's going to reach them is strong wording and forceful conversation. They've been trained to not think for themselves.
Now, you might say, it's a horrible idea to be so vocal and demeaning when talking to these people, because that will stop some from changing, but I am of the opinion that people open to normal logic and reason argued in a rational conversation will make this discovery on their own. The rest need to have the screw pulled back out, and it takes Atheist's with screwdrivers, not pillows and flowers to do it. Stop holding your tongue because you may offend someone. Political Correctness can, as a God-fearing person would say, go to hell.
Think about the girl in Rym's high school class who asked the teacher if there were still US troops in Vietnam. The whole class laughed at her. Were they being mean? No. Did she feel bad? Maybe, or maybe she was even too stupid to feel bad about being stupid. But either way, laughing at and correcting ridiculous idiocy is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. It is neither mean, nor evil.
Yet, when ridiculous idiocy is related to religion of some kind. If the person believes in angels and demons and gods as opposed to unicorns and faries and thetans, then suddenly it's mean to have a normal reaction? It's the double standard when it comes to religious belief as opposed to other belief that creates a protrayal of atheists and skeptics as mean.
The difference is that when everyone laughs at the unicorn believer, the person is believing an unpopular falsehood. Relatively few people actually believe in unicorns. So when they are laughed at, the rest of the people around accept that laughing. But if the falsehood is a popular one, like chiropractic or Jesus, the laughing purveyor of truth finds few friends. They are viewed as mean not because they laugh, but because they laugh alone.
This isn't about a battle between truth and falsehood. It's battle of societal acceptance. Society pressures you to believe what it is popular to believe, regardless of truth or falsehood. If you have the balls to fight for your beliefs, true or false, if they are unpopular, society will call you mean, evil, crazy, etc.
Ask yourself. Is it more important to believe what is popular, in order to be socially perceived as being nice, or is it more important to fight for truth, regardless of how unpopular it may be?
Not being allowed to not hire religious people is the opposite issue. I'm not limiting anyone else's freedom. Working for me isn't a right. The government is limiting my freedom as an employer to hire and fire who I please for the reasons I please. Those reasons are not reasons of race, which people have no power over. They are reasons of belief, which people do have control over.
Let's say that I'm hiring someone. An applicant comes in and claims to believe that the earth is flat. Obviously I'm not going to hire this person because they believe crazy things. Nobody would argue with that, and there is no law that says I can't discriminate based on that belief. Yet if the person comes and claims to believe in a magic sky man, suddenly I can't discriminate based on that belief. All beliefs are equal. Why should a religious belief get special treatment when compared to other beliefs?
Despite what it may seem, I am complete tolerant. I allow religious people to be religious. I will tell them I think they are crazy, but you don't see me burning churches, beating up jews, etc. I allow them to do their thing. That is what tolerance is. Tolerating something doesn't mean likingit, or supporting it, or not speaking out against something. It just means allowing it.
Seriously? What if two people's wants come into direct conflict? What then?
So basically, I can bitch about your mess all I want. I'm not FORCING you to do anything. I'm just loudly voicing my desire for a clean house.
I have never grabbed you and marched you around the kitchen doing dishes.
Some people are intelligent and genuine enough to take tactfully stated points for what they are, but many people don't get it. This Christmas I had a very frank talk with my mother about her habit of buying WAY too much useless junk. It was fine if that was how she wanted to live, I told her, but I do not have the space nor the desire to clutter my apartment, so I left half of the "gifts" that were really just giftbag-filler-quality crap at her house when I went home after Christmas. She got very upset and claimed that she was upset because I was so "rude" and "mean" about it. Why couldn't I just come up with a subtle way to say they were "nice," but I wanted her to "hang on to them for me until I get more space?"
I explained to her that I HAD been subtly telling her this for the past few years. Not only that, but telling her the way she suggested wouldn't have addressed the problem and would have been a lie. She would have kept buying me junk, expecting me to come and take it all home someday when I got a bigger place. She denied that I had ever suggested to her that I didn't want the junk, so obviously, subtlety did not work in this case, and the blunt discussion was necessary. I was not being mean or a dick...I was simply communicating in the only way that seemed to be effective. Many times these people who complain about someone being harsh DID NOT GET IT when the person approached the subject genially. The blunt approach is the only way to get these people to understand your point, even if it makes them kick and flail and yell, "NO! NO! YOU ARE SO MEAN!!"
However, I believe that you should attempt to use tact before kicking someone in the balls. If they don't seem to get the point, THEN a ball-kicking is in order. I'm not saying I follow this rule all the time; I'm pretty well known for being candid, and I've occasionally been rude to people that didn't necessarily deserve it. Still, I think there is merit to the blunt approach and it has its uses where polite tact fails. Also, tact is not the same thing as dishonesty or a lie, so don't start with the "coercion is bad" crap. You can be polite without being dishonest.
The problem only arises when your want is another person's action. If you want someone else to play who does not want to. That's where you enter the shaky territory. Even so, it's fine to want other people to change or do things. I want religious people to all become atheists. Even so, I don't expect them to do it. I won't be upset if they don't do it. I just voice my preference, as I am permitted, and am done with it. If I were to attempt to use force, deception, or coercion to make them change according to my will, that would be wrong, and would violate the golden rule. I wouldn't want anyone to impinge on my freedom in such a way to make me religious, so I won't do it to anyone else. And even if I did use such methods, and they did work, it would be a hollow victory. If they only became atheists because they were tricked, or forced to do so, then their atheism is not genuine. I want people to come to the correct conclusion and understanding in their own minds. All I do is say true things, and do as I please. I expect no more from anyone else.
My belief in Christianity when I was young didn't feel genuine because I was forced-fed it practically from birth. I was totally against the idea of atheism and wanted nothing to do with atheists (my views of them were mostly my parents' that I just believed because I still didn't know better) but then I began asking questions about the bible that nobody could properly answer. These questions went on for years and I slowly became an atheist and it felt genuine since I came to it on my own terms through inquiry and study.
You can't go around doing whatever the fuck you like just because you claim that your chosen Magic Sky Wizard is on your side.
I love one of the slogans they use: "Gott ist mit an Sicherheit grenzender Warscheinlichkeit ein Teschechischer Schlagersänger" translates roughly to "God is with a probability bordering on certainty a popular czech singer", a reference to Karel Gott who became famous in germany for singing the german title song to the Maya the Bee anime.