God is not (so bad after all)

[MorpheusSandman]

I have no idea what you mean...

[The Atheist]

Materialists need a method of cultural inheritance and Dawkins presented one like the gene that he portrayed as a deterministic physical replicator.

Do you dream this stuff, then post later, or just type whatever comes to you when you're writing a reply?

I ask, because the ideas are again, ridiculous. Materialists don't need any means of anything, while the idea of cultural inheritance is simply Lamarckism and long-since debunked.

Can I suggest you have a look at some websites or books and learn about what genes are and what they do?

The purpose in the process was the selfishness of the meme to replicate.

Yet again, you're confusing "purpose" with actions. Genes don't have a purpose is replicating, it's just what they do.

Have you ever made rock candy? Give it a try. Mix sugar into boiling water until the solution is saturated (can dissolve no more sugar) then let it cool. Crystals will grow on the inside of the receptacle. Those crystals are absolutely analogous with genes - they will form into sugar crystals, not because there's any purpose in doing it, but because that's how those molecules act.

To meet a materialistic metaphysics this replicator has to be material and inside the brain. Sheldrake has a field theory of cultural inheritance and contrasted this with a comment by Dawkins on it that illustrates Dawkins' driving metaphysics: (Pages 183-4)

As Dawkins says, Sheldrake is wrong.

It does amuse me how you're complaining about Dawkins taking an a priori stance, which he does not, while supporting a bloke - Sheldrake - who does exactly that.

Just to bring this back to the original topic, we are discussing Gods and atheistic rejection of Gods.

And just to keep you to reality and not fantasy, materialist atheists generally don't reject anything. They examine the evidence and haven't found any for god/s yet.

I'm perfectly open to evidence of god/s, and in the lack of any, what is there to reject? I'm not going to reject the invisible pink unicorn either - I'll wait until there's some evidence of its existence.

To flip the spotlight back onto atheists, we need to understand how they view the universe.

With telescopes, mostly.

To even understand a theist's God, we need to examine the theist's universe.

As far as I've found, they don't do it themselves, in general. The churches and preachers don't like their flocks contemplating the universe, because they start wondering at the lunacy of their own beliefs that an entity would create something so immense, so replete with so many unbelievable wonders, only to use one infinitesimal bit of it.

[Ecurb]

As far as I've found, they don't do it themselves, in general. The churches and preachers don't like their flocks contemplating the universe, because they start wondering at the lunacy of their own beliefs that an entity would create something so immense, so replete with so many unbelievable wonders, only to use one infinitesimal bit of it.

No, Christians would never contemplate why an entity would build something so immense, only to use one infinitesimal bit of it, unless, that is, they were to read the 8th Psalm, which asks:

O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the Earth! who has set thy glory above the heavens.
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

[The Atheist]

That might even make sense if about 99.99999% of the stars and objects in the universe weren't invisible to the naked eye, and considering that those heavens were thought to be being viewed from the centre of the universe by people at that time.

Very good of you to reinforce my point about christians not thinking.

[Ecurb]

Thanks, Atheist! I knew you'd come around!

[MorpheusSandman]

With telescopes, mostly.

I genuinely laughed out loud.

[YesNo]

As far as I've found, they don't do it themselves, in general. The churches and preachers don't like their flocks contemplating the universe, because they start wondering at the lunacy of their own beliefs that an entity would create something so immense, so replete with so many unbelievable wonders, only to use one infinitesimal bit of it.

One of the best ways not to look is to generate self-righteousness against another group. This keeps one busy so one doesn't have the energy to think and deflects critical attention elsewhere.

As far as who does this more, Christians or atheists, that would depend on the individual.

[The Atheist]

One of the best ways not to look is to generate self-righteousness against another group. This keeps one busy so one doesn't have the energy to think and deflects critical attention elsewhere.

As far as who does this more, Christians or atheists, that would depend on the individual.

I'm going to pick theists, not just christians. I haven't ever heard of atheists torturing people who refuse to disbelieve in god/s, blowing people up for believing in the wrong god, hanging people for witchcraft, or trying to get The God Delusion included in school curricula. The 97% of NAS scientists who don't believe in god seem to have plenty of time to devote their critical attention to the tasks in hand as well.

[YesNo]

I'm going to pick theists, not just christians. I haven't ever heard of atheists torturing people who refuse to disbelieve in god/s, blowing people up for believing in the wrong god, hanging people for witchcraft, or trying to get The God Delusion included in school curricula. The 97% of NAS scientists who don't believe in god seem to have plenty of time to devote their critical attention to the tasks in hand as well.

It's not hard to find atheists acting badly, very badly. Just search YouTube for the Khmer Rouge.

When I hear the word "atheist", a scene from "The Killing Fields" of a young, self-righteous, Khmer Rouge girl putting a plastic bag over her victim's head immediately comes to mind. That is probably not the image that comes to your mind when you hear the word "atheist", but you can't assume everyone sees the world the same way.

This thread is about Hitchens' writing and some negative responses to it. From my reading of Hitchens, the most annoying part is his self-righteousness.

We can switch the focus from the pseudo-scientific view of the universe that atheists present to the self-righteousness they exhibit. One of the questions then would be how does atheistic self-righteousness differ from that of racists, homophobes or antisemitic people? My answer is that the only difference is in the targets.

[MorpheusSandman]

We can switch the focus from the pseudo-scientific view of the universe that atheists present to the self-righteousness they exhibit. One of the questions then would be how does atheistic self-righteousness differ from that of racists, homophobes or antisemitic people? My answer is that the only difference is in the targets.

Wow... really? Pseudoscience has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Something is pseudoscience based on whether or not it follows the rigorous methodology of scientific inquiry. I don't know what "atheist pseudoscience" you have in mind, but I'm guessing it's not psuedo at all.

However, your vague accusation of atheist views as being "pseudo-science" is innocuous compared to your downright offensive and ludicrous comparison of atheists to racists, homophobes, and antisemites. That claim is just stupidity on a mind-boggling scale. Firstly, racists, homophobes, and anti-semites are OVERWHELMINGLY religious, and they USE their religion to JUSTIFY their hatred and attempted oppression of minorities. The notion that atheists "hate" theists, or that they're trying to suppress/oppress them in remotely the same way the religious have done to others is about the most flaming hypocritical turd of nonsense as I've ever heard. The Daily Show even did an excellent piece exposing how ludicrous the idea was. Atheists disagree with a believe theists share, and they often openly disagree with them by saying it publicly in debates, books, online arguments, etc., but please point to me one example of an atheist doing something that would suggest they hate Christians, the way racists have lynched black people in cold blood, or the way homophobes have beaten homosexuals to death solely for their sexual orientation. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, certainly not in a country where the overwhelming majority of people are Christian theists.

No, what's happened is that in such a country the majority builds up a ridiculous amount of privilege and, yes, sense of self-righteousness that comes along with it. They basically think they rule everything, and the minute someone says "no, you can't oppress us; no you can't treat us as second-class citizens; no, you can't infringe upon our governmental rights," that same privileged majority starts throwing a hissy fit like a bunch of crybabies. That's precisely what we see from those Christians interviewed in The Daily Show segment. They actually think that being called homophobes is an example of THEM being victimized. It's the Christians who are self-righteous, and whom, the minute their beliefs are questioned, perceive it as an attack on that righteousness and then psychologically project that self-righteousness on to everyone else. "No, no, it's not me who's self-righteous for condemning homosexuals, it's YOU for saying I can't do it!" "No, no, it's not me who's self-righteous for claiming how the universe works based on a 2000 year old book without a stitch of evidence, it's YOU whom are self-righteous with your provable science and logic and reason!"

Get a clue.

[Ecurb]

Religion has a long, sordid history of promoting tribalism, bigotry, self-righteousness, and irrational hatred. However, to excuse atheists who make bigoted or self-righteous statements by saying, "They're not as bigoted or self-righteous as religious people" constitutes a false dichotomy. Bullies who beat people up aren't as bad as murderers, either. That doesn't mean that assault and battery shouldn't be a crime.

[MorpheusSandman]

to excuse atheists who make bigoted or self-righteous statements by saying...

I don't think I'm excusing anything, I'm saying I don't see it happening--certainly not on the levels various paranoid theists/Christians claim it's happening. Watch that Daily Show link; I find that level of paranoia far more common than actual examples of actual atheists displaying comparable levels of self-righteous bigotry that's so common amongst the religious. Online, the number of actual, bullying, bigoted atheists full of hate for theists I've encountered I could count on one hand (and I've been a part of several forums for over a decade now), while the number of actual, bullying, bigoted Christians full of hate for, say, homosexuals are so common I couldn't count them all. Plus, I don't even think the common difference is comparable to your murderers/batterers analogy; it's more like murderers VS someone saying "I think your beliefs suck and are false and you can't oppress people," which isn't illegal.

Plus, let's please make a distinction here between being bigoted against people for something they can't control, like the color of their skin or sexual orientation, VS being bigoted against someone's chosen belief system. I'm fairly sure most people are bigoted against belief systems that would excuse going out and killing someone because of the color of their skin, yet is that a negative kind of bigotry? Intolerance of intolerance is not a oxymoron or paradox, yet it's precisely the kind of thing atheists of are accused of when we condemn Christians' condemnation of things like homosexuality.

[Ecurb]

I understand your points, morpheus, but I'm not sure the fact that we "can't control" skin color or sexual orientation is significant. I've never quite understood why Gay Rights Activists make a big deal out of sexual orientation being innate -- what does it matter? Would it be any more justifiable to discriminate against homosexuals if their orientation was NOT innate? If other sexual orientations are innate (like pedophelia or sadism), does that mean we should see them as somehow OK? (By the way, I grant that an orientation is not evil -- acting upon it may be.)

IN addition, although here in the (relatively liberal) West, religious faith is a choice, that is not always the case. If you live in Iran, your religious behavior may be coerced -- and religions are generally "inherited" (although not genetically) in that they are passed, like language, from parents to children. It would be silly to be bigoted against English speakers, or Spanish speakers, even though these are learned behaviors, just like religion. Bigotry against religious people is a form of ethnocentrism. Obviously, it's reasonable to argue for freedom from religion-based oppresion (like laws banning homosexuality or fornication), and for reasonable educational goals (like teaching evolution), and it's reasonable to contemn (a good word, by the way) self-righteousness, without condemning it. What is not reasonable is to call anyone expressing religious beliefs "morons" (not that you've done that, morpheus, but some atheists have, in this very thread).

[MorpheusSandman]

I think the innateness of sexual orientation was more an issue from the religious side of the argument. It's easier (ie, more personally psychologically justifiable) to condemn a choice than it is to condemn something someone was born with. So it was a matter of the religious claiming homosexuality was a choice while simultaneously knowing nothing about it, and homosexuals responding by saying "uhh, no, it wasn't a choice at all." IE, more a matter of false claim leading to a backlash of attempted correction. I certainly agree, however, that it wouldn't be any more right to discriminate against homosexuals if it WAS a choice, merely that I think certain people who WANT to discriminate against them would find it more psychologically justifiable to do so.

You make good points about religious beliefs being inherited in a sense, and there are definitely more extreme forms of this than elsewhere, but I'm mostly limiting it to the Western experience since, afterall, how many Iranians does a Westerner encounter online? However, even if someone has "inherited" a religion, that doesn't mean they aren't still free to disinherit that belief as they experience and learn more and break away from their roots. This is precisely what happened to me and, I imagine, most atheists in the countries dominated by religious belief. I'd also agree it's not reasonable to call anyone a moron solely because of their beliefs, as I've meant plenty of morons with every belief system under the sun, but at what point in a debate is it reasonable to do so after it becomes clear that a person is clinging to their beliefs and ignoring all facts and reason to the contrary?

[The Atheist]

It's not hard to find atheists acting badly, very badly. Just search YouTube for the Khmer Rouge.

You forgot Stalin & Mao.

I find it amusing when people have to resort to that kind of dribble to attack atheism. The killings of Pol Pot, Stalin et al were not done in the name of atheism, but nice of you to try the oldest chestnut in the book.

When I hear the word "atheist", a scene from "The Killing Fields" of a young, self-righteous, Khmer Rouge girl putting a plastic bag over her victim's head immediately comes to mind. That is probably not the image that comes to your mind when you hear the word "atheist", but you can't assume everyone sees the world the same way.

I can't help what goes in your mind, but it amuses the hell out of me.

We can switch the focus from the pseudo-scientific view of the universe that atheists present to the self-righteousness they exhibit. One of the questions then would be how does atheistic self-righteousness differ from that of racists, homophobes or antisemitic people? My answer is that the only difference is in the targets.

This has now officially become the funniest thread ever. You're hilarious.

Pseudoscience, racism & homophobia - just brilliant, my man.