Edit: Can someone correct my typo although it technically still makes sense?

Came expecting 60 Dawkins

A 'real Christian' does not hope for anyone, even Richard Dawkins, to burn in hell, nor would they send him hate mail. There's one in the middle that almost does it right, until the writer claims God calls him a fool. No man can put words in God's mouth, nor is God, as illustrated by their own stories, the sort who calls anyone a fool.

The hate stems from a misunderstanding of evolution. Foolish people equate evolution with creation, when evolution is not a theory of creation at all. Ironically, it's the intelligent design people that understand this. (Not that they are correct; intelligent design is just the logical conclusion of believing in creation and evolution both.) They are both too stupid to realize that evolution is not an attack on their religion, and too stupid to control their base flight or fight response.

I would call it a misunderstanding of Christianity more than anything.

I would call it a misunderstanding of understanding! Nyah!

Richard Dawkins is the man, there needs to be more atheist who are as proud as he is to stand up for what they believe in. We're people too.

I can't see I agree with that; I'm an athiest and I find Richard Dawkins to be annoying as hell. That said he can be funny every so often.

Please, tell us more about these subjects you clearly understand.



I'd say that Richard Dawkins has a real talent for evolutionary biology. It's too bad he's given it all up to write trash pop-sci books to fill the intellectual spank banks of disenfranchised youths. A sort of Ayn Rand for kids who grew up in restrictive conservative Christian households, if you will.

I've come to like him more over time, but yeah he can be intolerable sometimes.

.

Hm, all of his hate mail sounds like a tract written by Jack Chick. Coincidence?

A friend of mine sent this video to me a while ago. I never said anything about it to her.

But my only thought upon encountering people like Dawkins or the people writing these letters is;

Holy ****, these people must know a lot more than me to come to these conclusions.

Gah, you're so ****ing stupid.

Science and religion are NOT compatible. Stop rationalizing your beliefs by saying they are.

Rational empiricism and traditionalism are only incompatible insofar as one is extremely boring or extremely insufferable.

I find the God choice boring, what a scapegoat.

Okay.



My beliefs? My beliefs? Which are what, Emon? What am I rationalizing? It's very clear, Emon. You believe God created us in his image.. You believe the theory of evolution is true. The only way to combine these is to believe that God designed the process by which evolution works; you believe in Intelligent Design.
But lets not stop there, because I know if you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen



where I clearly say that I don't think the people who believe in Intelligent Design are correct. I'm positive you just didn't read it at all, because your reading comprehension skills are better than that, right? In fact, I never expressed any of my own beliefs at all, I spent the entire post explaining someone else's.

So please tell me what my beliefs are. I'd really like to know.

That is not intelligent design. Intelligent design specifically rejects the theory of evolution. It is the same thing as creationism.

No it doesn't. Not directly anyway. It rejects random evolution, but not that a sky-being is waving his hand around and making it happen.

Stop defining your own words guys.

The common association with the term Intelligent Design is with a rejection of evolution and the accepted age of the earth (among other things) but presented as a scientific theory to get around laws against teaching it to kids. It is also almost universally accepted by it's proponents that the god of Intelligent Design is the god of Christianity.

Just because the words 'intelligent design' can be used to describe the idea that a creator set up explicit rules of operation for the universe and then let fly, doesn't mean you are doing yourself any favors by using them. It's a decidedly less painful idea to have to hear someone talk about, but you really need to differentiate it lest you be associated with those redneck folks.

Instead, let us pray to the old ones in hope that we are eaten first.

I can't tell if JM is being sarcastic or serious. I'm going to assume that he's being serious for the sake of argument.


Who are you to decide who's a "real Christian" & who's not? It's true that there are a lot of moderate Christians that subscribe to a watered down version of their religion but that doesn't make them any more "real" than an Evangelical that thinks that "god hates fags". The moderates are bothered by the latter because they take the Old Testament too seriously while the Evangelicals are bothered by the moderates because they don't take it seriously enough. There's enough contradictions to confuse the hell out of even the most enlightened "biblical scholars".

I would also like to add that the God of Abraham was indeed the the type to call people fools. Try reading Corinthians & Proverbs (amongst others).


It obviously has more to do w/ the fact that it makes the book of Genesis look about as historically accurate as "Star Wars". Moderates have watered down & redefined it enough to where they can feel comfortable w/ evolution but the fundamentalists are unable to do this (because they believe that God wrote the bible through the apostles). The "Intelligent Design people" don't accept evolution as you claim. The exact opposite is true. Have you read anything by the "intellectuals" on their side (e.g: Michael Behe)? Research "Irreducible Complexity" & then come back & tell me that they believe in evolution. They believe in a very limited form of evolution at best.

The fact of the matter is that science forces religions to re-evaluate/re-define their beliefs every so often so that they can continue to be relevant. This has been going on for quite some time & will continue until they're no longer able to move the goal post every time science scores.

But really, besides the literal interpretation, what conflicts are there between religion and science in an individual's personal experience? I don't think theistic scientists have any problems with their work because they subscribe to traditions, as Jonc said. For me they're not related anymore. One is for morality, personal awareness and spirituality, the other is for figuring and predicting. Very rarely do they conflict, and when they do it's not hard to reconcile for most people.

Edit: The part where religion does start to bother me is when people use it to make truth statements about things that are actually their personal opinion. However, this has little to do with religion and everything to do with people.

Except that's not a logical conclusion. It's a non-sequitur.


Doesn't really matter, your reasoning was incorrect in any case.

Religion is based on faith, which is by definition taking something to be true without evidence. Science is a rigorous process whereby all understanding is continually reevaluated and corrected. This is the exact opposite of faith.


That's the problem. People (mostly Christians, Jews, western religions) keep throwing out parts of the Bible as science has moved in to provide better, real explanations. You end up with such a watered down interpretation that it offers no real explanations for anything at all.

But that's my point, if you're looking for religion to explain things to you, you're doing it wrong. I don't drink or smoke or read poetry because I want scientific insight, and I don't think religious people are spiritual because they want to learn. That's only the closest comparison I personally have, not trying to equate the two. When someone compels you to "believe" their faith, what it seems to me they're really saying is that their conviction and enjoyment is real.

Historically this is exactly what religion has been for. Why else would you have it? Moral insight? Maybe from Buddhism, certainly not from Christianity or Judaism. Oh, that and to provide comfort and false hopes.


So are you talking about "spiritual" experiences? Experiences that are, by our current understanding entirely neurochemical? Which can be found in a variety of other forms, including music, art, psychoactive drugs and even a helmet that emits EM pulses? Why should anyone be religious and (presumably) take on all the other dogmatic garbage that comes with it?


Of course people aren't religious because they want to learn. Religious institutions almost always bury the truth in favor of dogma.


Of course it's real, but I'd argue religion is entirely unnecessary. I also hear a lot of people say "well, I find it comforting." It seems like they're lying to themselves when they say that. Believing in something just for an experience or comfort seems dishonest and ultimately useless.

It sounds like you're arguing in favor of, "oh, this is deep, man, pass that blunt" spiritual experiences and not for anything else that traditionally comes with religion.

Yeah, I'm saying those people who try to use their religion to defend their personally held beliefs, or worse to make them into a totalitarian dogma are doing it wrong. I am also not playing moderate, I oppose the church going anywhere near my science or my laws, and I think when it does it is toxic. But what I'm saying is that spirituality itself does have validity, and if people can only feel spiritual with what you and I consider useless and hokey, it doesn't really matter on a larger scale. What would a Religious man do differently knowing one of his beliefs wasn't accurate, scientifically? If I think the weed makes me better at math, what does that really actually hurt?

Back up for a minute. Please define "spiritual."


Ignore the science in favor of dogma or scripture. Not sure why you're asking this when you seem to know the answer.


I don't follow. What has this got to do with anything we've discussed?

I feel most religious people treat life as a multiple choice question, they just circle something because they don't want to leave it blank

I'm going to have the most horrific hangover tomorrow. I've spent the past half an hour yelling out "I am a prostitute" in thai at the local police, and trying to make my friend's thai girlfriend watch the australia vs france rugby game without success.

I've got to get up in about 5 hours and ride my motorbike to the local racetrack for something that's going on there. I think I'll take a blanket and just pass out on the grass when i get there.

Kit tem kaiiii. I want to watch the rugby, but there are unconscious people in the living room.

I don't think it's dogma for most people, though. I think they do it because their father did it, or because it provides something they couldn't find elsewhere. Yeah, if dogma is the only way some people can feel spiritually satisfied, which inherently cannot be defined, I think the cognitive dissonance related to sciences they don't even use or need to concern themselves with is perfectly harmless.

I always say this: If we decided religion would inform* our science tomorrow, how would we possibly use it? Would we spend biology class praying for insight into the periodic table? Or if we accepted science into religion, would we study the effects of baptism in order to improve the rituals success rate? The problem is when people think they have to compete or compliment eachother. They're not related anymore because science has taken care of the (edit*) search for explanations while religion has become the history, tradition, and narrative.

* Jon`C Approved Edit

I think this is a great point. Being able to separate the historicity of sacred rites and retain the value they hold for the psyche is, I think, a mark of an intelligent mind. I'm not saying this is the current state of religion, but these tirades against anything resembling religion are terribly ironic.

I'm also continually amused by the misinterpretation of the word religion by pseudo-intellectual basement dwellers (I myself not sleeping there, thus pushing me one notch up the PI chain) who rant and rave and go home to jack off to a picture of Dawkins, all the while overlooking their own all consuming 'deep-religion'.


Consider this discussion, courtesy of Salt Lake Community College:

Student One:Hey, your pagan thunder gods are silly, we have proved what lightning is! Could I share a message with you about the promise of the first rainbow?

Student A:Promise of the first rainbow? We know how light refracts and acts and **** now. Let me tell you about the fundamental workings of gravity so that I can save your immortal soul.

Student Me:Hey guys, look what I found, two douchebags arguing about whose dogmatic approach to life is better!*



*contents abriged

JediKirby, for once you have a good point, but I can't let your first remark slide.

You, JediKirby, do not understand science. You don't know what it is. You don't know what it represents or what it's capable of. Science doesn't just "accept" things; science is just a process for creating knowledge, limited to and limited by empiricism. Science is something you do, something you use. Science is not a religion for aspies. And even if it were, JediKirby, you aren't a member of the "we" who would be accepting anything into science, because no matter how many times you read A Brief History of Time and nod along pretending to understand, or get a painful erection while listening to Karl Sagan talk about stars, you aren't a scientist and you'll never be one.

Just like every Christian and Muslim, everything you believe comes from some man telling you what to believe. And just like every bad Christian and bad Muslim, you don't even know enough about your faith to understand what it means or why it's important.

By the way, when I said:

"Rational empiricism and traditionalism are only incompatible insofar as one is extremely boring or extremely insufferable."

...I was talking about the people who believe they are incompatible, not the beliefs themselves.

And it was an inclusive or.

Bunch of putzes.

I certainly know that science is a process and not a system of beliefs, and didn't intend to imply otherwise. I also didn't claim to be a scientist, or to even use science. Thanks for the scathing remarks though, always good to hear from you.

Edit: In fact, I'd count myself amongst those religious people who don't even use or need the science to work for them in their personal lives. I think the very point I was making is that the engineers and scientific researchers of the world are the only ones that actually need to concern themselves with the things atheist criticize theists for not utilizing. I get my bubblies from Karl Sagan and all that because it fills me with something, and I no longer pretend it's me knowing something important that theists don't. It's mostly irrelevant to the average person.

Wait I thought thats what we were talking about, religion science versus real science versus religion versus properly contained religion in an epic celebrity deathmatch


joncey, does it require that you be published to be a scientist? I'm not arguing here, I'm just asking your opinion. I don't think something is 'science' to my understanding until it's brought in front of other people for discussion and, other things.

Kind of like how the Norse didn't discover north america because they didn't do **** with it except build that secret underground cavern with treasure in eastern candida

Amusing, but would have been much more watchable without the people giggling in the background. Also, he should be wearing a smoking jacket.

On a vaguely similar note (let's laugh at religious people): the fattest states are also the most religious: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16707170

First, let's talk about what a scientist isn't.

One definition could be: a scientist is a person who is regarded as such by other scientists. But that's a circular definition, and based entirely on a person's perception. This is why, for example, Richard Dawkins is still regarded as a scientist even though all he does anymore is complain about religious people.

Another definition, and probably one more familiar to "science fans" would be: a scientist is an expert in a field that is regarded as a scientific field. But that's still based entirely on a person's perception. For example, depending on who you're talking to this definition could mean that Karl Marx and Milton Friedman have the same scientific credibility, which is absurd.

Here's another bad definition, which is unfortunately the way it works in real life: a scientist is a person with a Ph.D. who works for a university as a professor or a post-doc.

This is what a scientist actually is: a scientist is a person who objectively uses observation and experimentation to synthesize new knowledge, and then openly shares his results and methodology in such a manner that allows other scientists to understand and reproduce those results.

Okay thats what I thought. Though, I often see people getting worked up over the idea of new knowledge, but that is because people often confuse collected data with new knowledge. AFAIK, most discoveries come from trying to figure out why the gathered data draws a smiley face when graphed along side the oscilloscope output of Sweet Child O Mine. You know, like in Primer. For a long time I thought most scientists got ideas and then tested those but it kind of seems like thats not how most breaktrhoughs happen unless they are confined to a chair.

Don't worry this will be the first of many badly worded questions I will be using to make a documentary film about you for film school.

I'm also going to incorporate a gun and some sort of breifcase.

I was trying to read this whole thread in Richard Dawkins' voice (in my head) because that's the sort of thing I do for fun, but then I got to this post and it felt too absurd.

Maybe according to you, but not to most religious people. Not by a long shot. People still hold their believes to them very closely and would be pretty offended to have it reduced to "history, tradition and narrative." To even the most progressive of religious people in western culture, religion represents some kind of deeper truth not knowable through other means.

Also, history, tradition and narrative of what, exactly? Of the human race? Of the religion itself? If the first case, it certainly fails at all three. In the second, it then exists no purpose other than to perpetuate itself.