1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Want some serious feedback about your writing? Enter the Q3 2019 Story Competition!

    Topic(s): EITHER
    - What the Professors get up to in the summers.
    - Ritual Magic!

    Word count: 17.5k max (no minimum)
    Deadline: September 9th
    Check out the Competition Page
    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Q3 2019 Story Competition has 18 DAYS LEFT! (September 9th)

    Check out the Competition Page and get writing folks!
    Dismiss Notice

Article on Religion

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LINKed up, Oct 23, 2006.

Not open for further replies.
  1. LINKed up

    LINKed up Chief Warlock DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,406
    Location:
    A certain place in a certain area of space-time, a
    http://wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html?tw=wn_index_1

    This article is about a movement called The New Atheism. Basically, it talks about three guys and how they view religion and their reasons for saying that religion needs to be done away with. I find myself in agreement with them on certain points. Read and debate about it.
     
  2. The Dark Lord Squash

    The Dark Lord Squash Denarii Host

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Cardbord Box inside your closet
    The Article raises some interesting things, but I happen to be religious so I disagree with the main points. The problem is that people often take things and manage to twist them around. The Bible does not say that God hates all the gay people or that all of the Jews should die. This is just people who have twisted and just plain made up shit to get their point across. People who hang on to every word there holy book says are closed minded and give anyone who does believe in a god a bad name.
     
  3. Swimdraconian

    Swimdraconian Denarii Host DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,427
    Location:
    Florida
    While the article is well written, there are too many discrepancies in the information presented for me to do anything but state: wtf?

    If you're going to write an article on religious differences (and yes, this is what the article boils down to), get the fucking facts straight.
     
  4. LINKed up

    LINKed up Chief Warlock DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,406
    Location:
    A certain place in a certain area of space-time, a
    And what facts are those?
     
  5. Swimdraconian

    Swimdraconian Denarii Host DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,427
    Location:
    Florida
    For one, this makes no sense:

    One of the basic definitions of religion is faith; no matter how your definiton of faith may flow, it still comes down to what you belive in. So it can be inferred that he is saying that belief in anything is evil.

    Hey, wait a second! Isn't he saying that he believes religion to be evil?

    Why and why not? What proof does he have that makes him so sure that there isn't a God? And the fact that this "concept" of God has been around for such a long time doesn't lend a bit of credibility to the "theory"?

    I would type more but my dinner is lovingly calling my name.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2006
  6. LINKed up

    LINKed up Chief Warlock DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,406
    Location:
    A certain place in a certain area of space-time, a
    You obviously didn't read the article correctly, because they are saying there that the belief and the repect for the belief in God and religions like that are evil.
    Do you even know what a scientific theory is? Just because some idea has been around for a long time, doesn't mean that it has credibility as a theory, which needs to have backing evidence that come from experiments that can be reproduced and infinite number of times without fail.
     
  7. Necrule Paen

    Necrule Paen DLP Elite DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,167
    Location:
    Southern California
    ... and if you are going to argue against a statement you better get who is making said statement straight.

    The New Atheists are in fact saying the first statement.

    Dawkins, in fact, said the second.

    This article is not so much about religious differences as it is about the arguments and backgrounds of these people known as New Atheists.

    So either find something that the author himself is stating that is factually inaccurate or recognize who you are really criticizing, the New Atheists.
     
  8. ip82

    ip82 Prisoner

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,921
    Yeah, people believed Earth to be flat in one form or another for thousands of years. They knew it's a globe for barely 300.

    When I was a kid, I used to believe that Santa Claus existed. Now, I know better. Things evolve. Humanity is too. Unfortunately, faith is simply too instinctive and deeply rooted for the majority of population to simply give it up... at least not with some replacement. Regardless of what these new atheists from the article talked about, not believing in something CAN NOT replace believing in something, no matter how stupid (or not) that something is from a logical standpoint.

    History had proven time and time again that even though rationality can achieve great things, human insticts will ALWAYS win in the end. It happened with ancient world, it happened with communism, it will happen with atheism and modern civilized society (compare personal freedoms and ideals of 1900's and 2000's).

    It's true that God (probably) doesn't exist. But humanity is simply not mature enough to accept that fact. Both atheists and believers... deal with it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2006
  9. Swimdraconian

    Swimdraconian Denarii Host DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,427
    Location:
    Florida
    "not believing in something CAN NOT replace believing in something"

    This paraphrasing here of what the article was saying sums up what irks me about it. IT'S REDUNDANT! Am I the only one that sees this?

    I am a fan of the use of logic and all things scientific, but that's not logic, that's a paradox.

    Of course I might be confusing it with my term paper that I'm in the process of typing right now - this is just my view on what Dawkins says.
     
  10. Nobody

    Nobody Backtraced

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    430
    Religion is a completely pointless thing to debate. Everybody believes something at least slightly different from someone else, not counting the mindless drones who believe whatever they're told. And almost nobody is going to be converted, at least not easily. Again, not counting the mindless drones who believe whatever they're told. Just accept that everybody has their differences and get on with life. Oh, and as for doing away with religion... impossible. It's a part of so many people's lives, an integral part in many cases, that it couldn't be removed. Not unless it's over a long period of time. So long nobody realizes it's happened until too late.
     
  11. Swimdraconian

    Swimdraconian Denarii Host DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,427
    Location:
    Florida
    I can only hope this doesn't end in bloodshed. ;)
     
  12. LINKed up

    LINKed up Chief Warlock DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,406
    Location:
    A certain place in a certain area of space-time, a
    With religion's track record as far as that goes, thats no very likely draconian. :p
     
  13. Swimdraconian

    Swimdraconian Denarii Host DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,427
    Location:
    Florida
    Roflmao! Believe me when I say that every religious debate I've been in has made me want to voluntarily chop my own head off - just so I don't have to think about it anymore. :eek:
     
  14. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,087
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    That's true. *points to Spontaneous Generation*
    And I happen to be an elf, cleverly disguising myself in the form of a human.

    What? It's not like you can't prove I'm not. [/theist arguement]

    Article: Very interesting.
    Depends on what you're worried about harming, really. The culture and history of the area(Faith-based violence and revenge in the name of God), or are you more worried about the, sometimes violent, people who are obsessed with never knocking down buildings that represent such barbaric times?

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Swimdraconian

    Swimdraconian Denarii Host DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,427
    Location:
    Florida
    Quote:
    After all, he argues, "if you have to hoodwink -- or blindfold -- your children to ensure that they confirm their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct."

    Most religions do this and its not mutually exclusive to religions in general. The "concept" of God exists because it's convenient to believe in.

    And yeah, my earlier arguments look stupid because I forgot to read the last page. Duh...:wall:
     
  16. Erised

    Erised Backtraced

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    England
    Hmmm.... People can believe whatever they want if it makes them happy.

    It is only when a religion begins to impose its morals and values on non-believers or other religions that we have a problem.

    Soon we end up with witch-burnings, Jihads etc

    The idea of their being a 'one true religion' is the biggest agenda that stunts humanities growth, why can't there be many religions as well as non-believers.

    I see it like this:

    God is a large golden goblet decorated with jewels of all kinds.

    It sits in the middle of a table in which is surrounded by people(representing the differing religions)

    One man says that the goblet is coated with Rubies(christianity), another says its emeralds(Islam), another swears that it is pearls(Judeism) that adorn the goblet.

    In essence what I am trying to say is that each person feels or experiances god in their own way, you cannot define the faith of an individual as it is a personal and private experiance.
    But in some way are we all latching on to the same inner need to feel wanted loved and justified as human-beings.

    God is not an outward entity that needs to be proven, but a primevil need to be loved and cared for.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2006
  17. BioPlague

    BioPlague MD DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,561
    Location:
    United States
    If you did away with religion, something else would crop up. If you did away with colors and race, we'd start criticising strictly upon how noses looked. Or eyes or ears.

    This argument is always looked at cosmetically - "Oh, there's no truth here" and "There's no truth there" or "You guys just don't believe!"

    What it's becoming to sound like really though, is this: "I need elbow room and that means you assholes need to leave and die off."

    A side attacks someone, another side attacks in response and it's a never-ending conflict that ruins too many lives. Why? Because you believe differently? Have different perspectives? Think there's truth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the bones found at the bottom of the Red Sea or the miracles canonized?

    Or perhaps strictly in what is tangible at all times?

    Believe what you will until it comes to destroying people's lives, some suggest. But what about those who don't believe lives are so precious? Or that certain people need to be slaughtered? Certainly, Rwanda and Darfur give you some insight into that idealogy. I won't peddle my belief system onto you but realize that this isn't just religion. This isn't just, well, you're Catholic, you suck cock or, 'You believe in evolution? What a jackoff!' - it's much, much deeper than that.

    And if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else. Because it's a person's opinion and they'll voice it - and it's what they believe so they'll certainly go toe to toe with anyone. So, while on the outside it may look like a cup encrusted with different styles of jewels, it's a bit deeper. And I think we could do a whole lot better to understand that, be wise about that and move on.
     
  18. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    I find it funny how this article is written in a style very similar to that a religious article would be written in. Atheism is a religion like all others – after all, it takes a leap of faith to say with certainty that there is no God, as this statement has not yet been proven by science, or any other discipline.

    My biggest problem with this article is that, just as religion does, it treats the word of certain people as law. Dawkins is the Jesus of atheism it seems. Lets take a few examples.

    And the reply:

    Nice that. One man rejected these claims, so that of course means that they must be wrong. Just as Christianity takes Jesus’ word as law, or Judaism takes Moses, so it seems New Atheism takes the word of Dawkins as law without even seeing his arguments. All he has to do it “reject these claims” and they are instantly not true.

    Another example:

    Another point where we are given a statement by Dawkins that is instantly presented as fact. Where is the proof? Where are the calculations (which would be quite extensive and complex for a calculation such as this), the evidence?

    There is none, simply because calculating the probability of Gods existence is not possible. Partly due to the fact that the very definition of God is that he is outside and above the laws of science that we know, and partly because to calculate such a thing accurately you would first need to know everything about everything in the entire universe, as there could be something that would have effected the calculation that we simply do not know about yet. I could easily, given a couple of hours and Google, find several scientists who say that it is probable that God exists, and these calculations would be equally untrue.

    A third example:
    Were he not serious, I would have laughed at this point. Basically he is saying that if you are not an atheist, then you are not intelligent. This point is obviously flawed. Albert Einstein, possibly the most intelligent man to have ever lived, was a Christian. As were Isaac Newton; Max Planck; Gregor Mendel; Michael Faraday; Robert Boyle; Rene Descartes; Johannes Kepler; Nicholas Copernicus; and even Galileo, who this article for some reason claims is an atheist (his conflict was just with the Roman Catholic church – he said that he believed in the Bible, but that his solar system model was just a different interpretation. Perhaps the Roman Catholic church of the time executed him for atheism because of it, but in Galileo’s own eyes he still believed in God).


    Dawkins also seems quite keen in converting people to his new religion:

    Many people, atheists, decry religions for their desire to convert people, and yet here is Dawkins doing the same thing. I find it interesting how no-one who would condemn religions for this act does the same for New Atheism. Double standards are being applied I think, simply because New Atheism has a respectable, supposedly scientific, front that appeals to this modernistic age.

    Even the article accepts this, but seems to see no problem with it:

    Then we come to his argument against raising children in a religious way. He claims that this is forcing these children to take on these religions for life. This is simply not true. Many people raised in a religion will later in life denounce that religion – people can change their minds, make decisions for their own, become independent. I have met many people who were brought up to be Christians and are now atheists. I myself was brought up in a Christian household, and at the age of 14 I decided that there was no God. Now, later on in life I changed my mind (not due to my parents), but the fact that I had freedom to choose was still there.

    This argument also raises another point. If Dawkins believes that it is wrong for a child to be brought up in the doctrine of one belief, then should this not be applied to his own belief? Dawkins says that we should not impose our beliefs on our children, yet evidently this is exactly what he wants to do. Double standards, yet again, and also the tactic of many religions around the world that Dawkins would criticise.

    The rest of the article deals in the beliefs and faiths of various people, both scientists and not, and therefore I cannot argue against them as I can argue against a point based on logic.

    All in all, the article is a good one, becoming more balanced towards the end, but most of the arguments based on logic are flawed, and the arguments based on personal belief and perception are the same as those of religions in that you cannot argue against belief. I would say that the part of this article that interests me most is the presentation of New Atheism as a religion, and the fact that people who would decry religion are eagerly converted to the religion of atheism without even realising that it has happened.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2006
  19. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,087
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    1. The article is concerned with evangelical Atheists - the "New Atheism" movement. If you read, it's been denounced by other atheists.
    2. Are you under thee impression that we've ever worshipped someone? If so, who exactly?
    3. Do we have a set of beliefs? I was only aware of one.
     
  20. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    1. I had many times used the phrase "New Atheism" in my reply. I had assumed that by the end of my reply it would be taken that any mention of atheism would be refering to New Atheism. Evidently not. I'll go back and edit.

    2. A religion is not defined as something that worships something. Buddism is a religion, yet they do not worship any God or higher being. A religion is a group of people with similar faith, and it takes faith to be an New Atheist, and there are lots of athiests out there who believe in the same thing.

    3. You only need one belief for it to be a faith. In this case, the belief is the belief in the inexistence of God. There also is the belief in the need to spread this belief.
     
Loading...
Not open for further replies.