This is why I suggest a book like "The Third Chimpanzee." It's not talking about god, religion, or even the origin of life. It's a scientific treatment of evolution in light of a particular concept. It just so happens that it cites a lot of evidence for different facets of evolution that would be difficult to counter. It's a roundabout way to get him to consider things without attacking said things directly.
Oh my gosh, most of you people are ridiculously unhelpful to the OP. They just said they don't want to be condescended to and are asking for professional advice from the scientists here and what do you do? Merely tell them to "read a book" and "educate yourself" while getting into a retreaded flame-war about atheism. Good jorb.
I am not one of the FRC scientists, but looking up early Abiogenesis experiments like the 1950's Miller/Urey Experiment and Sidney W. Fox might be helpful. Look up the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, for even though there is not a single proven model, most of the current theories currently revolve around this hypothesis. NY Times Article
"Read a book" is helpful advice. For one, it encourages going to validated resources rather than taking the word of a stranger. It also gets you more current information. In the sciences, 50-year-old information is often way behind.
Remember when the Human Genome Project started? And it was going to take like a decade? Well now I can buy a benchtop sequencer for 70 grand and sequence an entire human genome in less than a day.
It might sound mean, but it is legitimately the best answer.
However, read X book is a lot more helpful. There are many books out there, and I have no real background to gauge their legitimacy.
Totally harmless unless/until they start telling you that God wants you to start/stop doing [thing] or hate [group]. Up until that point, who cares?
The thing is, such things are a natural consequence of pretty much any religion. Someone who does none of those things but claims to be religious is likely to either 1) not believe what they claim to believe, or 2) not care at all what happens to you at all.
Totally harmless unless/until they start telling you that God wants you to start/stop doing [thing] or hate [group]. Up until that point, who cares?
The thing is, such things are a natural consequence of pretty much any religion. Someone who does none of those things but claims to be religious is likely to either 1) not believe what they claim to believe, or 2) not care at all what happens to you at all.
This is a startlingly ignorant generalization about religious/spiritual people.
Your beef is with organized religion. Best stick with that.
Totally harmless unless/until they start telling you that God wants you to start/stop doing [thing] or hate [group]. Up until that point, who cares?
The thing is, such things are a natural consequence of pretty much any religion. Someone who does none of those things but claims to be religious is likely to either 1) not believe what they claim to believe, or 2) not care at all what happens to you at all.
This is a startlingly ignorant generalization about religious/spiritual people.
Your beef is with organized religion. Best stick with that.
No, some of us think that grown, seemingly intelligent, adults still believing that fairy tales and magic are real is a big fucking problem, especially when so many wield such great power and influence in our world. We need people to act in the best interests of other people, and not to listen to their imaginary friend.
Totally harmless unless/until they start telling you that God wants you to start/stop doing [thing] or hate [group]. Up until that point, who cares?
The thing is, such things are a natural consequence of pretty much any religion. Someone who does none of those things but claims to be religious is likely to either 1) not believe what they claim to believe, or 2) not care at all what happens to you at all.
This is a startlingly ignorant generalization about religious/spiritual people.
Oh? I wasn't talking about spiritual people, I was talking about religious people.
Your beef is with organized religion. Best stick with that.
The term "religion" has an inherent connotation of organization - that's why you felt the need to use a term like "spiritual" to dilute my point. It's also not just about organization; for example, someone may believe much of what is said in the Bible but not go to church.
No, some of us think that grown, seemingly intelligent, adults still believing that fairy tales and magic are real is a big fucking problem, especially when so many wield such great power and influence in our world. We need people to act in the best interests of other people, and not to listen to their imaginary friend.
Ah, but on one of your shows, you have stated that while you and Rym are atheists, you still see a place for spirituality. So at what point do you separate spirituality from belief in magic/fairy tales? What makes whatever form of spirituality you subscribe to differ from one that does believe in magic/fairy tales? Is it just a sort of awe at the overall grandeur if nature -- a feeling that you get when you see something incredibly beautiful and awe-inspiring like a Hubble deep field photo? Or is it something else?
No, some of us think that grown, seemingly intelligent, adults still believing that fairy tales and magic are real is a big fucking problem, especially when so many wield such great power and influence in our world. We need people to act in the best interests of other people, and not to listen to their imaginary friend.
The belief part is not intrinsically a problem from my perspective. It's the badwrong actions that are a problem.
You should check out Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies. I've not read it, but apparently the author spent 3 years participating in public debates with creationists, and illustrates each one of the 300 logical fallacies with examples that came up in these debates. In fact, as it's so cheap a Kindle ebook, I might buy it for my next trip.
The zealous arguments for absolute atheism without opportunity for agnosticism are mostly a backlash against the opposite zealotry in the Bible Belt. /r/atheism is FULL of pissed off Bible Belt youth who spout these arguments.
The words you sought were "gnostic atheism", not "absolute atheism". Gnosticism is the y-axis to Theism's x-axis. Carry on.
No, some of us think that grown, seemingly intelligent, adults still believing that fairy tales and magic are real is a big fucking problem, especially when so many wield such great power and influence in our world. We need people to act in the best interests of other people, and not to listen to their imaginary friend.
Ah, but on one of your shows, you have stated that while you and Rym are atheists, you still see a place for spirituality. So at what point do you separate spirituality from belief in magic/fairy tales? What makes whatever form of spirituality you subscribe to differ from one that does believe in magic/fairy tales? Is it just a sort of awe at the overall grandeur if nature -- a feeling that you get when you see something incredibly beautiful and awe-inspiring like a Hubble deep field photo? Or is it something else?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Yes, spirituality is a feeling that does not require any belief in magic or other nonsense. Just like you can feel love even if you are all alone in the world.
No, some of us think that grown, seemingly intelligent, adults still believing that fairy tales and magic are real is a big fucking problem, especially when so many wield such great power and influence in our world. We need people to act in the best interests of other people, and not to listen to their imaginary friend.
The belief part is not intrinsically a problem from my perspective. It's the badwrong actions that are a problem.
Aha! This brings up one of my favorite points.
Consider Orthodox Jews. They will not eat pork, among other things, because they truly believe. There is a book that tells them not do to that, and they believe that book is 100% true. That is why they obey that book no matter what. They will obey the rules in that book above all other laws. They really believe if they break the rules that a magical omnipotent god will be unhappy, and when you are a mere mortal you do not want to piss off wizards, let alone gods.
Now consider a reform Jew. They SAY they believe in the hebrew god from the same book, but do they really believe? If they really believed that there was an omnipotent god who created the universe and can do anything at any time, they would be scared shitless. OMG there is an ultra powerful guy and I broke his rules! The fact that they aren't scared shitless is proof they don't truly believe deep down in their hearts. For these people, which I believe are the majority of our society, we simply want to get them to admit to themselves, and to others, that they do not actually believe.
What harm is there that they say they believe, but do not actually believe? The harm is that many people claiming, falsely, to believe make it acceptable for others to truly believe. If only the people who truly believed claimed to believe, they would be an extreme minority. Their actions would be viewed as unacceptable and crazy by most of society such that they would be almost eliminated in a relatively short period of time thereafter.
No, some of us think that grown, seemingly intelligent, adults still believing that fairy tales and magic are real is a big fucking problem, especially when so many wield such great power and influence in our world. We need people to act in the best interests of other people, and not to listen to their imaginary friend.
The belief part is not intrinsically a problem from my perspective. It's the badwrong actions that are a problem.
The thing is, beliefs are not held in a vacuum, and people don't tend to believe things that are entirely without consequence. As such, I would say that it's important to combat all kinds of irrational beliefs, and more generally the tendencies that make us susceptible to them.
What harm is there that they say they believe, but do not actually believe? The harm is that many people claiming, falsely, to believe make it acceptable for others to truly believe. If only the people who truly believed claimed to believe, they would be an extreme minority. Their actions would be viewed as unacceptable and crazy by most of society such that they would be almost eliminated in a relatively short period of time thereafter.
If you are saying that "saying you believe" is an intrinsically harmful thing, cool-beans. Still doesn't violate my perspective at-all. For example, if I went around convincing people to kill, cook, and eat babies - I'm doing a bad thing by saying things. You've said nothing with your four paragraphs.
The thing is, beliefs are not held in a vacuum, and people don't tend to believe things that are entirely without consequence. As such, I would say that it's important to combat all kinds of irrational beliefs, and more generally the tendencies that make us susceptible to them.
You're arguing the pragmatic issue. I am not. Your argument requires statistics and evidence, setting specific things as valuable and not. I'm approaching the general issue, which just comes down to philosophy and logic. You can make an argument that religions and irrational beliefs do more harm than good. But so long as it's possible for there to be a conceivable irrational belief that produces superior results, the problem is not inherent to the concept of irrational beliefs.
What harm is there that they say they believe, but do not actually believe? The harm is that many people claiming, falsely, to believe make it acceptable for others to truly believe. If only the people who truly believed claimed to believe, they would be an extreme minority. Their actions would be viewed as unacceptable and crazy by most of society such that they would be almost eliminated in a relatively short period of time thereafter.
If you are saying that "saying you believe" is an intrinsically harmful thing, cool-beans. Still doesn't violate my perspective at-all. For example, if I went around convincing people to kill, cook, and eat babies - I'm doing a bad thing by saying things. You've said nothing with your four paragraphs.
Merely saying you believe, but acting as if you do not believe, is not intrinsically harmful. What is harmful is that a consequence of so many people falsely claiming to believe results in a society where true belief and actions based upon true belief are accepted and permitted.
Also, if someone says that they believe, then that is evidence that the person lacks certain critical thinking skills. It tells you something about that person, and how their brain works. The things it tells are not good.
Oh my gosh, most of you people are ridiculously unhelpful to the OP. They just said they don't want to be condescended to and are asking for professional advice from the scientists here and what do you do? Merely tell them to "read a book" and "educate yourself" while getting into a retreaded flame-war about atheism. Good jorb.
I am not one of the FRC scientists, but looking up early Abiogenesis experiments like the 1950's Miller/Urey Experiment and Sidney W. Fox might be helpful. Look up the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, for even though there is not a single proven model, most of the current theories currently revolve around this hypothesis. NY Times Article
"Read a book" is helpful advice. For one, it encourages going to validated resources rather than taking the word of a stranger. It also gets you more current information. In the sciences, 50-year-old information is often way behind.
Remember when the Human Genome Project started? And it was going to take like a decade? Well now I can buy a benchtop sequencer for 70 grand and sequence an entire human genome in less than a day.
It might sound mean, but it is legitimately the best answer.
However, read X book is a lot more helpful. There are many books out there, and I have no real background to gauge their legitimacy.
I can poke through some textbook reviews and figure out a good one to start with. You could also try buying one off of some freshman at your school.
Merely saying you believe, but acting as if you do not believe, is not intrinsically harmful. What is harmful is that a consequence of so many people falsely claiming to believe results in a society where true belief and actions based upon true belief are accepted and permitted.
On this we can agree simply.
Also, if someone says that they believe, then that is evidence that the person lacks certain critical thinking skills. It tells you something about that person, and how their brain works. The things it tells are not good.
I will give you that it tells you something about a person, but I won't give you that it denies they have certain critical thinking skills. I am quite open to the perspective that some spiritual/religious/theist people have thought incredibly long and hard about these things and in vastly more detail than I have ever even bothered with. I'm even open to the idea that I'm the one possibly lacking those skills. Cause 'skepticism.
One could argue that knowing the truth is innately valuable and so believing false things and misrepresenting your belies are both intrinsically harmful in the damage they do to that.
Also, if someone says that they believe, then that is evidence that the person lacks certain critical thinking skills. It tells you something about that person, and how their brain works. The things it tells are not good.
I will give you that it tells you something about a person, but I won't give you that it denies they have certain critical thinking skills. I am quite open to the perspective that some spiritual/religious/theist people have thought incredibly long and hard about these things and in vastly more detail than I have ever even bothered with. I'm even open to the idea that I'm the one possibly lacking those skills. Cause 'skepticism.
Personally, I'd put it this way - it's evidence, but it's very weak evidence. People can easily (and do) have those skills and fail to correctly apply them to all areas.
One could argue that knowing the truth is innately valuable and so believing false things and misrepresenting your belies are both intrinsically harmful in the damage they do to that.
Certainly. And that's something to be debated on its merit. You can make that argument, but if that's the argument you're making you should probably start from that premise rather than simply the conclusion that "theism is morally wrong" or something else. It also stands on its own that in this context, atheism would also be a bad choice because you can't "know atheism to be true" and you don't want to believe in false things. So you should, ya know, end up being skeptical of all the things.
One could argue that knowing the truth is innately valuable and so believing false things and misrepresenting your belies are both intrinsically harmful in the damage they do to that.
Also, if someone says that they believe, then that is evidence that the person lacks certain critical thinking skills. It tells you something about that person, and how their brain works. The things it tells are not good.
I will give you that it tells you something about a person, but I won't give you that it denies they have certain critical thinking skills. I am quite open to the perspective that some spiritual/religious/theist people have thought incredibly long and hard about these things and in vastly more detail than I have ever even bothered with. I'm even open to the idea that I'm the one possibly lacking those skills. Cause 'skepticism.
Personally, I'd put it this way - it's evidence, but it's very weak evidence. People can easily (and do) have those skills and fail to correctly apply them to all areas.
Is not the ability or failure to apply skills to all areas a deficiency of the skill itself?
If I am really good at putting in golf, but not uphill, am I not worse at putting than someone who can put in all circumstances including uphill?
Even if I willingly choose to putt poorly when going uphill, there is still no evidence that I am capable of doing so. Seeing as both circumstances have the same lack of evidence, they are effectively equivalent.
You could also try buying one off of some freshman at your school.
lol, wat, RISD? o.O (Anyway, I am no longer student there.) seriously speaking, however, I think something like talkOrigins or 3rd chimp, which are directly geared towards my interest, is going to be more fruitful than wading through a biology textbook.
Certainly. And that's something to be debated on its merit. You can make that argument, but if that's the argument you're making you should probably start from that premise rather than simply the conclusion that "theism is morally wrong" or something else.
It's not the argument I'm making; the pragmatic side you've decided to avoid is the more important aspect.
It also stands on its own that in this context, atheism would also be a bad choice because you can't "know atheism to be true" and you don't want to believe in false things. So you should, ya know, end up being skeptical of all the things.
Is not the ability or failure to apply skills to all areas a deficiency of the skill itself?
In a sense, but then no one really has that skill. It's an indicator, but by human standards cognitive biases like that are the norm rather than the exception.
And no evidence to the contrary. It's not really an area in which you debate evidence. If you fall upon your blade here (Occam's Razor interestingly enough) you also have to realize the limits of the tool, and that you're once again forced into the pragmatic.
Comments
1) not believe what they claim to believe, or
2) not care at all what happens to you at all.
Your beef is with organized religion. Best stick with that.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Consider Orthodox Jews. They will not eat pork, among other things, because they truly believe. There is a book that tells them not do to that, and they believe that book is 100% true. That is why they obey that book no matter what. They will obey the rules in that book above all other laws. They really believe if they break the rules that a magical omnipotent god will be unhappy, and when you are a mere mortal you do not want to piss off wizards, let alone gods.
Now consider a reform Jew. They SAY they believe in the hebrew god from the same book, but do they really believe? If they really believed that there was an omnipotent god who created the universe and can do anything at any time, they would be scared shitless. OMG there is an ultra powerful guy and I broke his rules! The fact that they aren't scared shitless is proof they don't truly believe deep down in their hearts. For these people, which I believe are the majority of our society, we simply want to get them to admit to themselves, and to others, that they do not actually believe.
What harm is there that they say they believe, but do not actually believe? The harm is that many people claiming, falsely, to believe make it acceptable for others to truly believe. If only the people who truly believed claimed to believe, they would be an extreme minority. Their actions would be viewed as unacceptable and crazy by most of society such that they would be almost eliminated in a relatively short period of time thereafter.
Also, if someone says that they believe, then that is evidence that the person lacks certain critical thinking skills. It tells you something about that person, and how their brain works. The things it tells are not good.
If I am really good at putting in golf, but not uphill, am I not worse at putting than someone who can put in all circumstances including uphill?
Even if I willingly choose to putt poorly when going uphill, there is still no evidence that I am capable of doing so. Seeing as both circumstances have the same lack of evidence, they are effectively equivalent.
seriously speaking, however, I think something like talkOrigins or 3rd chimp, which are directly geared towards my interest, is going to be more fruitful than wading through a biology textbook.