Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[crazy canuck]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?

My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true".  You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.

[Berkut]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?

My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true".  You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.

I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.

I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.

[grumbler]

My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true".  You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.

If you mean the "Atheists versus Dawkins" article, it unfortunately suffers from the same problem as most of what Dawkins himself writes:  it sets up strawmen, and then demolishes them, without ever addressing the points that the other side have actually made.

[crazy canuck]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?

My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true".  You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.

I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.

I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.

The quesion I would have for you then is what philospophy is "true".  A scientific theory can be "true" in the sense that it best conforms to observed data and testing but it can also become false when new data and testing disproves it.  The same process cannot be applied to philosophy.  I am unaware of any philosophic point of view which has been proven to be "true".

[The Brain]

Sigh.

[Berkut]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?

My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true".  You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.

I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.

I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.

The quesion I would have for you then is what philospophy is "true".  A scientific theory can be "true" in the sense that it best conforms to observed data and testing but it can also become false when new data and testing disproves it.  The same process cannot be applied to philosophy.  I am unaware of any philosophic point of view which has been proven to be "true".

I did not claim that a philosophic point of view was false, I said a philosophy based on something that was false, ie a philosophy based on a false premise, in this case, that there is a god.

I don't accept that a system of belief that informs actions based on something that is false at its foundation can or ought to be something we should accept. IMO, by definition anything that is good that comes from any such system must be based on those parts of that system that are not reliant on the falsity of the premise, in which case it is better to simply extract the portion that is not false, and incorporate it into your ssytem of belief without the portion that is false.

In more concrete terms, if you say (as a common example) that you accept that there is no god, but religion is still a positive because it includes the concept of the golden rule, then my response will be that it is not religion which is positive, but the golden rule, and we can have that without the need for the religious container, and would in fact be better off with a system of belief that informs our actions that includes the golden rule, but excludes god.

[Viking]

So you can teach them about religions but you shouldn't teach them to hold any specific beliefs stemming from one?

No, you teach them about religions, but you never teach them that X is what you (the kid) believes because you (the kid) is a catholic. Basically deciding the kids religion for them. He thinks that parents making the kid join their religion is child abuse.

[Viking]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?

We let parents teach truths like "playing in traffic is dangerous" and "eating dog poo is bad" and "don't get in cars with strangers". However much I dislike it "jesus christ died for your sins" can't be banned. We can't go around punishing people for being honestly wrong. So, No, I do not believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach children their religious beliefs as truths.

As I have been trying (and failing, apparently this is hard to express) to say is that the issue at controversy for Dawkins is the one separated by the fine line being drawn between telling a kid under the age of reason

"Little Jimmy, me and your mother are Catholics and this is what we know to be true."

and

"Little Jimmy, you are a catholic and this is what you know to be true."

[Razgovory]

My dear, Viking I have far more evidence of you being illiberal then simply defending Dawkins.

For instance :http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8717.0.html

[crazy canuck]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?

My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true".  You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.

I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.

I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.

The quesion I would have for you then is what philospophy is "true".  A scientific theory can be "true" in the sense that it best conforms to observed data and testing but it can also become false when new data and testing disproves it.  The same process cannot be applied to philosophy.  I am unaware of any philosophic point of view which has been proven to be "true".

I did not claim that a philosophic point of view was false, I said a philosophy based on something that was false, ie a philosophy based on a false premise, in this case, that there is a god.

Yeah, I know that is what you were saying.  But there is no way to either prove or disprove that there is a god.

[Berkut]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?

My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true".  You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.

I have to run, but I did read the article, and it is interesting, but not really new.

I may have more time for a more thorough response later, but my two cent response to the basic idea is simply that I do not accept the premise that a philosophy based on something that is false can be held up as a desirable means to a reasonable end.

The quesion I would have for you then is what philospophy is "true".  A scientific theory can be "true" in the sense that it best conforms to observed data and testing but it can also become false when new data and testing disproves it.  The same process cannot be applied to philosophy.  I am unaware of any philosophic point of view which has been proven to be "true".

I did not claim that a philosophic point of view was false, I said a philosophy based on something that was false, ie a philosophy based on a false premise, in this case, that there is a god.

Yeah, I know that is what you were saying.  But there is no way to either prove or disprove that there is a god.

That isn't relevant to the discussion though - the article in question is one written by atheists about the utility of religion from the perspective of atheists. The non-existence of god is assumed.

Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.

[crazy canuck]

That isn't relevant to the discussion though - the article in question is one written by atheists about the utility of religion from the perspective of atheists. The non-existence of god is assumed.

Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.

Fine.  But then your argument is no better than the fundamentalist christian argument you reject.  You justify your stance on an unproveable assumption and then make judgments about others assuming your first premise is true.

This is exactly what I dislike about the movement that has been called the "new atheists" of which Dawkins (and apparenty you) are members.

Given that you are surrounded by fundies I suppose you can be excused for taking the mirror image opposite view of them.  But your view also ignores the wider diversity of religious thought that has signficiant value whether or not a god exists.

Indeed, you are more radical than even Dawkins as even he concedes that everyone should learn about religions if for no other reason than to appreciate their rich literary contribution to society.

[grumbler]

Fine.  But then your argument is no better than the fundamentalist christian argument you reject.  You justify your stance on an unproveable assumption and then make judgments about others assuming your first premise is true.

This is exactly what I dislike about the movement that has been called the "new atheists" of which Dawkins (and apparenty you) are members.

Given that you are surrounded by fundies I suppose you can be excused for taking the mirror image opposite view of them.  But your view also ignores the wider diversity of religious thought that has signficiant value whether or not a god exists.

Indeed, you are more radical than even Dawkins as even he concedes that everyone should learn about religions if for no other reason than to appreciate their rich literary contribution to society.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of "assumption" if you think that "I will not assume the existence of beings for whose existence there is no evidence" and "I will assume the existence of beings for whose existence there is no evidence."  Assumptions are only properly made when there is no other choice.  I see no reason for Berkut to make any assumptions whatsoever about unevidenced beings, whereas the case is the opposite for the believers of any sort.

I don't understand your blind rush to try to make equivalent things that are not related.  I rather suspect it is because you don't have an argument to make but want to argue anyway, but it really doesn't matter, since you aren't getting away with it anyway.

[Sheilbh]

This is a problem I have with Dawkins and the like. I'm judging him only on the show he did over he, 'The Root of All Evil?' But he engaged with one relatively sophisticated Christian thinker - the Bishop of Oxford. As the Bishop pointed out, for example, what's really remarkable about evolution is how quickly most Christian Churches accepted it not the, frankly tiny, number of believers who still don't.

The rest of the time Dawkins was speaking to literalist fundies in Coloradan mega-churches (I can't comment on anything he did with other religions). Which is fine and certainly makes for better TV but is hugely misleading. There's a billion Catholics in the world, around 250 million Orthodox and 80 million or so Anglicans - not to mention the Lutherans and others. But Dawkins, certainly on that show, preferred testing himself against a groupuscule of a church.

It's easy, from any perspective, to make a strong critique of Ted Haggard (I think he was the guy in the show) but far tougher when you're dealing with the Orthodox, Anglican or Catholic perspective. If you're going to argue with someone you need to deal with their strongest points not the periphery of literalists.

[grumbler]

Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.

Exactly.  It isn't a debate about theology, it is a debate about the social utility and social cost of having religion, no matter whether it is a religion with a god, and no matter whether any postulated god exists.