| Sebastian 23.06.2017 16:44 |
IS IT AGGRESSIVE TO OPENLY SAY THERE IS NO GOD? More often than not, some of the most annoying and deluded arguments against open atheism (as opposed to mere open secularism) come, not from religious individuals, but from people who either are or claim to be non-believers and kick off their discourse with the clichéd ‘I’m an atheist, but…’ Before moving on, remember this: life’s not black and white, and it’s not a greyscale either; there are millions of colours, and not being able to see infra-red or ultra-violet doesn’t mean they don’t exist; there is, however, yet another layer to it: there are infinite colours which do not exist and which, unlike IR and UV, cannot be measured (since they don’t exist), and just because one person, or twenty, or a billion, believe they do, doesn’t make them real. Now, to revert to the previous point regarding the feeble ‘I’m an atheist, but…’ opener, I shall try it out in order to see how it feels and get it out of the way. I’m an atheist, but I’ve got absolutely no problem with people believing whatever they want, I’ve sung religious pieces many times – couldn’t care less about the fact those lyrics refer to imaginary creatures, as that wouldn’t stop me from singing ‘Seraglio’ or ‘Das Rheingold’ if I ever had the chance – and I can sympathise (even if I thoroughly disagree) with the notion of seeking prayer or the idea of the divine justice or the afterlife as some sort of comfort or solace. I do draw the line, however, at double standards. I genuinely don’t mind people using (stock) phrases such as ‘God bless you’ or ‘Thank God,’ but I’d always wondered whether believers – or, more to the point, ‘I’m an atheist, but…’ apologists – would be equally amenable of the same approach when at the receiving end of it. I began, then, replying to ‘God bless you’ with ‘God doesn’t exist, but thanks for the nice intentions.’ Suddenly, accusations of being rude, impetuous or narrow-minded began pouring, both from believers and atheists alike. Now, that’s a double-standard if I’ve ever seen one: why is it alright for a believer to say out loud that there is a god (or several) but not for a non-believer to say there isn’t? What would happen if I wore a t-shirt with the message ‘there’s no God’? Would I be respected the same way people with crucifixes or rosaries are in most Western territories? How is that ‘imposing’ my views, but saying ‘God bless you is not’? Secularism and freedom cut both ways: if it’s acceptable for believers not to shut up about it (and it is), then it’s also fine for atheists not to keep it to ourselves. After all, not being quiet isn’t quite the same as being aggressive. Remember: B/W, greyscale, colours, IR, UV… To sum up: if you believe in any of the thousands of gods humanity’s worshipped, you’re more than entitled to say so, out loud, and to wear items that represent your faith, and to post whatever you like on social media, and it’d be ridiculous for me to be offended by that. But there’s the flipside: I’m also more than entitled to say there are no gods, say it whenever and wherever I want, and it’d be ridiculous for anyone else to be offended by it. |
| mooghead 24.06.2017 05:11 |
In your experience when someone says 'I'm an atheist, but', what is the 'but' followed by? I'm an atheist but there is absolutely no 'but' whatsoever. |
| Sebastian 24.06.2017 06:29 |
More often than not, some sort of arse-licking towards believers: 'I'm an atheist, but I think we should leave them be.' 'I'm an atheist, but I prefer not to engage in arguments, so I keep it to myself.' 'I'm an atheist, but I respect religions.' 'I'm an atheist, but if their belief leads them to wake me and my neighbours up with their silly prayers, we should just let them.' 'I'm an atheist, but I think you shouldn't be saying those things.' 'I'm an atheist, but what's the harm in them believing in Yahweh/Allah/etc?' 'I'm an atheist, but I don't think we should annoy them.' 'I'm an atheist, but I'm glad this new pope is more open. I like him.' 'I'm an atheist, but I think children deserve to learn about Jesus.' 'I'm an atheist, but I'm not strident.' 'I'm an atheist, but I don't post atheist memes on social media. They're just uncalled-for teasing.' 'I'm an atheist, but I think we should respect what Muslims/Xtians/Jews/Hindus/etc do, it doesn't affect us.' 'I'm an atheist, but I cannot prove there's no god, therefore their claim is as valid as ours.' 'I'm an atheist, but I'm annoyed by fellow atheists saying it out loud.' |
| Oscar J 24.06.2017 08:22 |
I think you're confusing arse-licking with humility. |
| Saint Jiub 24.06.2017 13:49 |
Oscar J wrote: I think you're confusing arse-licking with humility.Agreed. |
| Sebastian 24.06.2017 22:30 |
There is a sliding scale indeed, but it's not B/W or a greyscale. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.06.2017 05:28 |
Let me break this down into four parts to give my view: 1) Is it ok to say "there is a god" / "there isn't a god"? Yes, it is. But, despite the wording, it is not a statement of fact - it is a statement of belief respectively a statement of disbelief. Everyone is entitled to believe or disbelieve what they want to, no matter how offensive this belief or disbelief might be to anyone else. To what extent one may ACT on ones belief / disbelief is another question altogether which far exceeds what one can reasonably expect to be the boundaries of this topic. 2) Should people who adhere to a religion get special treatment, i.e. do religious beliefs merit protection that other beliefs do not? No. Things like blasphemy laws, meant to protect the sensibilities of a certain kind of religious person, are outrageous, as they elevate a personal belief to a collective standard. Even worse is the flip-side, the sense of entitlement, sometimes even enshrined in laws, that 'protect' certain religious people from challenges to their beliefs. For instance, limitations on what kind of public events can be held on Sundays (the enforcement of 'Sunday rest' on those who don't subscribe to it), laws prohibiting 'non-Islamic' teaching, the refusal to teach evolution in biology classes, history classes slanted to a certain religious viewpoint, the list goes on and on. Whatever you believe or don't believe, your beliefs are not a ground for protection against criticism or challenge. We have a similar problem with freedom of speech, which means nothing more and nothing less than that the expressing of an opinion can never in itself be an unlawful act. But increasingly, people believe that "freedom of speech" means what they say cannot have any (negative) consequences for them, that everyone has to *respect* their views. Not so, and religious beliefs should be treated in the same way: expressing them can never be a crime in and of itself, but neither do they entitle the one who expresses them to any special status or protection from criticism. 3) Is it more reasonable to say "there is no god" than to say "there is a god/there are gods"? I don't believe so. First of all, to establish whether or not there is a god, you need a definition, giving you criteria to confirm or falsify. No adequate definition of what a god is has ever been put forward, so even if we had the capability to test every imaginable criterion, we still wouldn't know how to establish whether or not there is a god/are gods. For more on this topic, look up "theological noncognitivism". This definition problem / the problem of religious language is only one part of a far larger set of enormous philosophical problems around the god-question. 4) Does simply not believing in god make you an atheist / do atheists have the right to redefine the term "atheism" to include everyone who isn't theist? NO! Since the rise of what is called the "new atheism" of people like Richard Dawkins, attempts have been made to redefine the word "atheism". Compare the Wikipedia page on the term (reflecting the view of the "new atheism" to the dictionary definition (adhering to the classical and strict semantic definition) , for instance. link - "the belief that God does not exist" link - "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." In the first, the original, semantically most correct definition is given. Atheism comes from the Greek, a-theos, meaning "no god" or "without god". Simple: atheism is the belief that God does not exist. In the second, the Wikipedia / New Atheism definition, the real, original definition of atheism (a-theos = "no god" / "without god") is presented as the 'narrowest' definition, while the 'primary' definition is presented as being all those views that do not entail the belief in the existence of deities. So, agnosticism (the viewpoint that we do not know or cannot know whether there is a god / are gods) and a number of other non-theist philosophical views are co-opted by atheism. I find that extremely offensive. As you've probably already guessed, I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist. I am not a theist. I do not believe in the existence any gods, nor do I disbelieve that. Let me explain: I do not believe in any religion. I do not think any religious idea or text is anything more than a product of human intelligence, sometimes of great quality, sometimes not so. I do not believe that Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Vishnu, Jahweh, Elohim, Belenos or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist. But that does not mean that any or all of those are the full and/or correct definition of what (a) god is. Now, I do not believe that any adequate definition of (a) god exists, but merely for the sake of argument, let me produce two flawed ones to illustrate: if we define god as "an anthropomorphic intelligence that created the universe and all in it, revealing his teachings to his chosen species, created in his image and closely scrutinizing them, punishing them for defying his teachings, etc. etc." then I say "that does not exist". But if we define god as "that unknown/unknowable quality which caused the universe to come into existence", then I would have to say "well, I suppose that exists (or existed)". Richard Dawkins and a number of the "New Atheists" do not respect (or perhaps do not understand) the subtleties that mean agnostics like myself cannot consider ourselves atheists. Let me put it very simply: since I do not know of any adequate definition of "god", I do not feel I can reasonably say whether it exists or not. "Ah," says Dawkins, "but it is more probable that god does not exist than that he/she/it does exist". Why does he say that or something very similar to it? Because evangelical atheism accepts the theist definition of god and then rejects the veracity thereof. But, a theological noncognitivist does NOT accept the definition. Therefore, I cannot make an informed statement of probability. Atheism is a gross oversimplification of my view on the subject, so therefore, I am offended if I am labeled an atheist in the same way I would be offended to be labeled a theist. |
| Mr.Jingles 26.06.2017 19:26 |
Nothing wrong with atheism. Anti-theism is what gives atheism a bad name. Just like fundamentalism gives deism a bad rap. |
| YourValentine 02.07.2017 04:55 |
Why should it be aggressive to say there is no god? Atheists are the most tolerant and peaceful people on earth. I never heard that atheists demand that certain days should be holy, that certain food should be banned, that animals must be slaughtered in a special way, that people must wear certain clothes, that gays must be hanged in public, that women must be stoned for extramarital sex after having been raped and the list goes on and on. Atheists usually do not call out believers for their endless stupidity and narrowmindedness. Only when lives are in danger the craziness of believers is stopped by law, for example when parents deny their children live saving medical treatment because religion told them to. Of course, people will say that belief and religion is not the same but religion would not exist without the believers who claim that their God is the only true and real God. Religion is the power organisation of believers trying to rule into our society. Arheists are not restricted in their thinking and exploring the possibilities of science and research. No atheist ever claimed to know exclusively how the world was created and how the human spirit came into this world. No atheist ever burnt a fellow human being alive because they would not sign to the freedom of science and the idea that science can answer the questions we have about the origin and fabric of the universe. Atheists believe that we do not have the answer because our science is not advanced enough yet but sooner or later we will get to the answers and should we find that there was a creator we will certainly not deny it. Atheists should be more self confident and offer their ideas more to the public discourse. Maybe we would not spend so much time fighting about burkas and pork in school lunches. |
| Oscar J 02.07.2017 07:49 |
YourValentine wrote: Atheists believe that we do not have the answer because our science is not advanced enough yet but sooner or later we will get to the answers and should we find that there was a creator we will certainly not deny it. Doesn't that technically make you agnostic and not atheist though? |
| YourValentine 02.07.2017 08:56 |
I used to call myself an agnostic but now I think the term is too tentative for me. Being an atheist is the answer to not being in a religion or church. First there must be the idea that God exists before I can decide that for me he does not exist. I did not grow up in a social vacuum where I thought about the existence of God just for the sake of it, I grew up with a religious education and the doubts about the "truth" I learnt from people I trusted were very severe. Still, I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creator but I think it is very unlikely. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.07.2017 08:57 |
Oscar J wrote:Exactly. The definition of atheism has been stretched beyond its breaking point by the New Atheism - most self-described atheists are agnostics.YourValentine wrote: Atheists believe that we do not have the answer because our science is not advanced enough yet but sooner or later we will get to the answers and should we find that there was a creator we will certainly not deny it.Doesn't that technically make you agnostic and not atheist though? |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.07.2017 09:03 |
YourValentine wrote: I used to call myself an agnostic but now I think the term is too tentative for me. Being an atheist is the answer to not being in a religion or church. First there must be the idea that God exists before I can decide that for me he does not exist. I did not grow up in a social vacuum where I thought about the existence of God just for the sake of it, I grew up with a religious education and the doubts about the "truth" I learnt from people I trusted were very severe. Still, I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creator but I think it is very unlikely.I think that's very regrettable and honestly I expected better of you. "Being an atheist is the answer to not being in a religion or church"That's simply not true, and offensive to boot. The word to describe the above already exists, and it is "irreligious". Many people who hold a large diversity of spiritual views (ranging from animism on one extreme to theological noncognitivism on the other) are irreligious but not atheist, and you now lump them under that latter heading without their consent, oversimplifying a host of nuanced views. "First there must be the idea that God exists before I can decide that for me he does not exist."Would it not be more accurate to say that there must be a definition of what is meant by "God" before any statement on the existence of said concept can be made? "Still, I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creator but I think it is very unlikely."Since that is a view described perfectly by the term agnosticism, why do you feel so hostile to that concept, which describes the views you mention far better than "atheism", which means the disbelief in god(s)? |
| Invisible Woman 04.07.2017 12:26 |
Most of people believe in something or someone, it's easier for them. I believe that exist some kind of force and that has created the world and life.I think that God is all around us, in air, water, nature... If all this doesn't exist there would be no life on Earth.It's a miracle.:) I do not think it's bad if someone doesn't believe or is not religious,everyone has the right to believe or not. |
| The Real Wizard 04.07.2017 12:27 |
YourValentine wrote: I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creatorIt will never happen, since such an idea is not testable. You cannot see something that does not physically exist. On a more philosophical note - if there was a god, in this day and age you'd think he/she/it would give some better clues as to how they exist than texts that are thousands of years old and "personal experiences" that only seem to take place in people who want to have them in the first place. |
| The Real Wizard 04.07.2017 12:31 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The word to describe the above already exists, and it is "irreligious". Many people who hold a large diversity of spiritual views (ranging from animism on one extreme to theological noncognitivism on the other) are irreligious but not atheist, and you now lump them under that latter heading without their consent, oversimplifying a host of nuanced views.Excellent point. The word "atheist" implies a willful position being taken. Some people simply may not have a position and don't care. It would be like calling "not playing golf" a sport, or calling abstinence a sex position. Religion is the only subject where there is an entire canon of language to describe the various degrees to which people do not participate in it. People who don't play golf aren't "nongolfists". They just don't play golf. But alas, this is what happens when religion has been such a domineering force in the world over the last few thousand years. |
| The Real Wizard 04.07.2017 14:37 |
Is it aggressive to rightfully state there is no god? If I insist there are unicorns, then I have the burden of proof. And until I can prove it, anyone is well within their rights to call me at best wrong and at worst clinically insane. But as Sam Harris says - "This is the true horror of religion: it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own." Thousands of years ago people knew so little about the world. They were illiterate, but they were curious. They asked the big existential questions all on their own, and devised philosophies and religions and even patterns in the stars to help answer them. But today, with most of us having Smartphones that can make pancakes, one can wonder how many people would even care about these things if religion wasn't feeding them the questions (and answers) to begin with. But those Smartphones haven't made us any smarter. We are still not rational beings. We are, after all, animals, with a need to survive. After about 200,000 years, far less than half of us are scientifically literate. Most of us can't tell the difference between what's real and what isn't. Most 4 year old kids have invisible friends in the sandbox, and most of them become grown adults who make the conscious decision to relocate that sandbox friend to the sky. That is enough cause for realization that religion is going to continue to be a fundamental need for most people for a very, very long time. But religion is just the symptom. The root of the issue is a need for cognitive closure. The answer to the topic starter is no, it is not aggressive to insist there is no god. If anything, it is aggressive to insist there IS one. There is way more important dialogue that we need to be having. But most people just aren't up for it yet. |
| The Real Wizard 04.07.2017 14:49 |
Invisible Woman wrote: If all this doesn't exist there would be no life on Earth.It's a miracle.:)It certainly is. But that doesn't mean it was a god, two gods, a million gods, a dragon, or someone who looks like Dennis Rodman. What you've described is the "god of the gaps" theory. Where knowledge ends, god begins. The more rational decision is to simply say - "I don't know." And that's perfectly OK. Because nobody knows. It's interesting to note that even some of the smartest people in history, like Isaac Newton, invoked a god where their knowledge of the world hit its limits. But that doesn't mean they were right. They just didn't know. link ^ Neil deGrasse Tyson explains it a lot better than I can. |
| Oscar J 04.07.2017 18:12 |
|
| The Real Wizard 05.07.2017 01:53 |
Too bad you edited that post - you asked some pretty fair questions that I was looking forward to answering. |
| Oscar J 05.07.2017 12:47 |
Ha, they were written very late in the evening and didn't look very good when I looked at the post again in the morning. English is my second language and my writing tends to deteriorate when I get tired. I'll try to remember the sentiment: "If I insist there are unicorns, then I have the burden of proof. And until I can prove it, anyone is well within their rights to call me at best wrong and at worst clinically insane." Religious concepts are mostly impossible to prove and by their very nature don't need to be proven to mean something to people. I think it's a little simplistic to treat religious views, whether it's a product of the human mind or something more, as provable/disprovable scientific hypotheses. "Thousands of years ago people knew so little about the world. They were illiterate, but they were curious. They asked the big existential questions all on their own, and devised philosophies and religions and even patterns in the stars to help answer them. But today, with most of us having Smartphones that can make pancakes, one can wonder how many people would even care about these things if religion wasn't feeding them the questions" "There is way more important dialogue that we need to be having. But most people just aren't up for it yet." I don't know why existential questions, pancake making smartphones and CERN accelerators couldn't be able to co-exist. The answers that science is able to give might be enough for some, but that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. Religion and metaphysics will continue to ignite discussion among the worlds most brilliant minds, regardless of whether we have, as you claim, more tangible or urgent matters to deal with right now. "Religion is the only subject where there is an entire canon of language to describe the various degrees to which people do not participate in it. People who don't play golf aren't "nongolfists". They just don't play golf. But alas, this is what happens when religion has been such a domineering force in the world over the last few thousand years. " I think it is interesting to note that you actually think we have too much nuance in this matter, when thomasquinn has just put forward some excellent reasons as to why such nuance is so important to him. It's not that he "doesn't care" as you say, but that he can't reject a concept of something "more" that isn't clearly defined. In an earlier version of your post, you mention something like "an invisible man in the sky" which is exactly the sort of concretisation that's much easier to reject. This is just one of many reasons why a non-believer might not choose to call him-/herself atheist, and why we need a term like agnosticism. |
| Saint Jiub 05.07.2017 14:38 |
There does not seem to be much room for tolerance or a middle ground in this discussion. Seems that the concensus seems to be that only ignorant baboons believe in God. I remember when my son was a boy scout in a Mormon sponsored troop. My son and I were welcomed and treated with respect even though we were not Mormon. I feel that religious people should be treated with respect if they in turn can respect non-believers. |
| Mr.Jingles 06.07.2017 07:03 |
YourValentine wrote: I used to call myself an agnostic but now I think the term is too tentative for me. Being an atheist is the answer to not being in a religion or church. First there must be the idea that God exists before I can decide that for me he does not exist. I did not grow up in a social vacuum where I thought about the existence of God just for the sake of it, I grew up with a religious education and the doubts about the "truth" I learnt from people I trusted were very severe. Still, I have to acknowledge the possibility that science some day might prove the existence of a creator but I think it is very unlikely. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson put it in a very good perspective. Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about labels If you want to label yourself as atheist, agnostic, Christian, etc; then that's fine. However, if you don't know exactly where you belong, then there's no need to define yourself, and more importantly you shouldn't allow others to put labels on you. One thing that bothers me about a lot of atheists (mostly the anti-theist ones) is that they want to label agnostics as "atheists afraid to come out of the closet", which is pretty fucked up. That's like a gay person labeling a straight man who likes to listen to Cher as "closeted". Such attitude is just as annoying and obnoxious as the one from hardcore religious people who want to convince you share their beliefs in order to be "saved". Here's a recent experience I had recently. I was raised Catholic, but mostly out of family tradition rather than actually being a practicing Catholic. Over the years I've been leaning more towards the agnostic side, but I've remained philosophically Christian. I don't go to church for anything other than taking part in someone else's ceremony, but once in a while I come across situations where I find myself praying. My grandmother died last month after battling cancer for 18 months, and her level of pain got to such a point where I asked God to let her go in peace. Not 100% sure if there's higher power listening to my pleas, but if there is one I wondered why he'd allow a very devout religious person like my grandmother to suffer for so long... or perhaps if God exists, perhaps he has decided to have no control whatsoever over what happens here on earth. Who knows? Maybe there's no God. Nobody knows... and I'm OK with dying not knowing the answer. All I know is that my grandmother is free from pain, and that's what matters. |
| Mr.Jingles 06.07.2017 07:07 |
|
| Mr.Jingles 06.07.2017 07:08 |
|
| Mr.Jingles 06.07.2017 08:55 |
Panchgani wrote: There does not seem to be much room for tolerance or a middle ground in this discussion. Seems that the concensus seems to be that only ignorant baboons believe in God. I remember when my son was a boy scout in a Mormon sponsored troop. My son and I were welcomed and treated with respect even though we were not Mormon. I feel that religious people should be treated with respect if they in turn can respect non-believers. This interview pretty much sums up what's fucked up about people who have extremist hardcore views about religion, or non-religion for that matter. Reza Aslan - WTF with Marc Maron For those of you who don't know him Reza Aslan is a scholar on religion and a frequent CNN contributor on the subject. He has written books about religions around the world. On this podcast Aslan talks about receiving death threats from both religious people and atheists. Fundamentalists criticize him for blasphemy and offending their beliefs, and anti-theists criticize him for being a religious apologist. Basically, all Aslan has done is stating the facts, how religion can be used for both good and evil. |
| The Real Wizard 11.07.2017 18:19 |
Panchgani wrote: Seems that the concensus seems to be that only ignorant baboons believe in God.Your words, and nobody else's. It's all about whether or not people are willing to accept propositions without evidence. The reality is - most people aren't willing to subscribe to evidence based thinking in the 21st century, ultimately defaulting to some variant of superstition or falsehood (not necessarily religion) at some point. However we characterize this is up to the individual. Sure, plenty of good comes out of religion. Empowerment, sense of belonging, etc. But the amount of good is far outweighed by the bad, and by a substantial margin. Any cursory look into the history of religion shows this to be true. All that said, we all should acknowledge this: If we compare the individualistic western world with group-oriented eastern philosophies, religion is pretty much the only major group-oriented activity left in the west that exists primarily to provide a safe place for people to congregate (unless we count yoga). It's also worth noting that plenty of church members are atheists or agnostics. They come for the community. We are better as a group, and most of us realize this on some level. |
| The Real Wizard 11.07.2017 18:28 |
Oscar J wrote: Religious concepts are mostly impossible to prove and by their very nature don't need to be proven to mean something to people. I think it's a little simplistic to treat religious views, whether it's a product of the human mind or something more, as provable/disprovable scientific hypotheses. I don't know why existential questions, pancake making smartphones and CERN accelerators couldn't be able to co-exist. The answers that science is able to give might be enough for some, but that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. Religion and metaphysics will continue to ignite discussion among the worlds most brilliant minds, regardless of whether we have, as you claim, more tangible or urgent matters to deal with right now.Great post - but I'm highlighting these points particularly. Existential questions are important. We've had them for thousands of years, and they have led to great leaps in knowledge. But there's a difference between asking the questions *and accepting that no such answers are available*, as opposed to asking the questions and accepting packaged answers that are patently false (without getting into a discussion of epistemology). In this day and age, a fair number of us have a clear understanding of what is testable and what isn't. This wasn't the case in 200 BCE. All that said, naturally I accept the points that you're making, as it's obviously not black and white for most people. But me personally, I just don't see the value of magical thinking in the 21st century. Although I can acknowledge that abstract thinking not rooted in rationality has led to a ton of good art. Beyond that, I just don't see how it's necessary for fairy tales to be the cornerstones of people's lives in this day and age. Children, sure. But educated adults? After a solid 20 years of thinking, reading, and much dialogue with others, it still doesn't make sense to me. Maybe one day it will. Whatever the answer is, I just hope it isn't a matter of people wanting the easy way out. Because there certainly are some people who prefer to defer to the afterlife instead of solving problems in the here and now. And let's note that "brilliant minds" is a subjective term. There are people like Deepak Chopra and Michio Kaku who are often labelled as brilliant, but almost the entire field of science would discredit them in part or in full if asked. There's a good reason why websites like quackwatch and rationalwiki exist - quantum woo is blurring the lines between science and pseudoscience. Even the smartest of laypeople often cannot tell the difference between the two, because the latter is branded so well. What appears to be great dialogue is very often pure bullshit being given a lot of air time, often for ratings or advertising revenue. Even some actual scientists are being drawn into it for the money. It's a complete mess. |
| The Real Wizard 11.07.2017 19:02 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: For those of you who don't know him Reza Aslan is a scholar on religion and a frequent CNN contributor on the subject. He has written books about religions around the world. On this podcast Aslan talks about receiving death threats from both religious people and atheists. Fundamentalists criticize him for blasphemy and offending their beliefs, and anti-theists criticize him for being a religious apologist. Basically, all Aslan has done is stating the facts, how religion can be used for both good and evil.Yep - he's going to piss off almost everyone by coming at it from that angle. No doubt he's an incredibly bright guy and very well studied, but he's out to lunch when he declares Sam Harris as unqualified to speak on the matter for not having formally studied religion. That's where he loses me. Sam Harris is incredibly well read on the topic - certainly more than 99.99% of theists. In fact, it's often the atheists who are the best religious scholars, because they aren't afraid to encounter information to counter their beliefs, since they don't have any ! Atheists are thus more likely to be intellectually honest in the study of religion. There will always be roads that cannot be tread if one who studies religion has decided that certain propositions are true and immune to criticism or question. |
| Dr Magus 17.08.2017 09:07 |
The origins of religion began when primitive, unenlightened humans decided to start talking to the weather. ....followed by man creating God in his own image. |