Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

Would you mind providing some examples?

I did in the same passage you quoted. An example would be Hitchens's response of "No, fuck you"; all it does is cater to audience expectation. Both Dawkins and Hitchens do a fantastic job of illuminating the horrors and atrocities that organized religion has caused throughout the world, but neither one can provide an extensive and convincing argument as to the non-existence of God. All they can do is levy acusations that it's illogical to believe in.

Who does?

Who cares? All I'm saying is that I would rather read Hume or Nietzsche. Don't be pissed off because I'm not entirely fond of your little atheist band of misfits.

EDIT: and Dak, I agree with that interpretation.
 
neither one can provide an extensive and convincing argument as to the non-existence of God. All they can do is levy acusations that it's illogical to believe in.



Who cares? All I'm saying is that I would rather read Hume or Nietzsche. Don't be pissed off because I'm not entirely fond of your little atheist band of misfits.

How exactly does one provide a convincing argument for something's non-existence?

Also, I think Jimmy was right to point out that Hume and Dawkins are not exactly intended to be compared. You said "I just don't put them up on the level of (what I believe are) revolutionary atheistic theorists like Hume or Nietzsche" unprompted as though somebody were arguing that and that that partially triggered your initial response.
 
How exactly does one provide a convincing argument for something's non-existence?

One can't, which is part of my point. All they can do is point out the illogic of theist arguments; but this doesn't do anything particularly new or radical, in my opinion.

Also, I think Jimmy was right to point out that Hume and Dawkins are not exactly intended to be compared. You said "I just don't put them up on the level of (what I believe are) revolutionary atheistic theorists like Hume or Nietzsche" unprompted as though somebody were arguing that and that that partially triggered your initial response.

Well, that's what you have imposed onto my mentioning of those theorists, but it's entirely plausible and reasonable to bring up alternative atheist thinkers where former ones have already been discussed.

Furthermore, as per my point above, all Dawkins and Hitchens can do is illuminate the flaws and fallacies of theist arguments. However, nothing I've heard them say has ever been more enlightening than what Hume, and maybe Nietzsche, have already said.
 
Yes but comparing Hitchens and Dawkins to Hume or Nietzsche is ridiculous. It's like comparing you, Dak and many "thinkers" on this board to Hitchens and Dawkins,:p heh
 
Fuck this state...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...st&utm_content=banned&utm_campaign=ppactionfb

Two Democratic woman lawmakers in Michigan, Rep. Lisa Brown (West Bloomfield) and Rep. Barb Byrum (Onondaga), said Republican House leaders refused to allow them to speak on the House floor Thursday after their emotional remarks opposing an anti-abortion bill the day before.

Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas (R-Midland) gaveled Brown out of order on Wednesday afternoon after she told her colleagues, “I’m flattered you’re all so concerned about my vagina, but no means no.”

Brown said she had no idea when she arrived at the House chamber Thursday morning that she would not be allowed to speak. She was about to deliver a speech in opposition to a bill that involves teacher retirement, as the minority vice chair of the Education Committee, but Minority Floor Leader Kate Segal (D-Battle Creek) told her she had been banned from speaking for the day.

"I'd love to know what I said that was offensive," Brown told The Huffington Post. "It was an anti-choice bill regarding abortion, which obviously involves a vagina, so, you know, I don't know what word I'm supposed to use otherwise."

Byrum caused a stir when she marched through the House gallery Wednesday protesting that she hadn't been allowed to speak on her amendment to the anti-abortion bill that would have required a man to have proof of a medical emergency before he could have a vasectomy.

"It's my impression that I'm being banned from speaking as a result of my use of the term vasectomy -- a medical procedure," Byrum told The Huffington Post. "Neither of us has been contacted by Republican leadership as to why or how long we've been banned. Talk about disrespectful, that they don’t have the common decency to tell us themselves."

Ari Adler, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Jase Bolger (R-Marshall), said the lawmakers were banned from speaking because of their behavior, not because of their word choice. "They behaved in a way that disrupted the decorum of the House," Adler said. "For Brown, it was not the words she used, but the way she used them that resulted in her being gaveled down." In Byrum's case, Adler said, "I hate to put it this way, but she essentially had a temper tantrum on the House floor."

Adler said the Republican floor leader told the Democratic floor leader the two representatives would not be recognized on Thursday. It's "not [the GOP's] concern" if the lawmakers weren't given the message, he said. It's unfortunate, he added, that the two lawmakers were sanctioned for what occurred during debate on an anti-abortion bill, because it makes it look as if they were silenced for reasons other than their "lack of decorum."

"The reality is, we have two representatives not being recognized today because of their actions yesterday," Adler said. "It has nothing to do with their gender or religion or the topics they were speaking about."

Byrum said that she believes her gender did have something to do with it, and that the silencing is unfair and unwarranted.

"There have been physical altercations between at least two men on the House floor, and I don't recall any of them every being banned from speaking," Bynum said. "It's just unacceptable to silence women when we're talking about women's reproductive rights."
 
I think Einherjer's general position is one that I share, and can be summed up in this fashion: "Tell me something I don't know". I'm rarely a fan of choir preaching.
 
Thanks for the link Dak, I really enjoyed that article. A growing theme in lots of current science-fiction is actually the dissolution of national identity and its displacement by new forms of social identity, which I think is an incredibly important and revolutionary idea. We still hear so much rhetoric today about being a "good American," yet the values that this country purportedly espouses are consistently in conflict with the political and economic actions it takes.

Also, I want to offer a quick complement to this quote: "The Internet and cheap travel alone are shrinking the planet, making it easier for people of like mind to find each other and organize themselves along lines of common interest, rather than accidents of birth."

There's a writer named Paul Virilio who has done a lot of work with modern technological developments and how they've contributed to the "shrinking of the world"; he's really interesting to read, and he doesn't approach his subject from a Marxist perspective. His two works that I've read are The Information Bomb and Open Sky, both very short and quick reads.

EDIT: and Jimmy, I agree with a lot of what Gray writes in this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.
 
I read The God Delusion, and fundamentalism is the last thing I found there. Sure, the famous atheist writers have confidence in their viewpoint, but it's based on facts and reason, rather than myths.

And it's a pretty good prediction that religion would die out if it were not instructed to children. That typically is how ideas die out, when a generation grows up without them, or rejecting them.

Edit: Skimmed the rest of the article. I don't see a single citation, yet he claims this:

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach.

Oh, and he said "secular faith."
 
He's accusing Dawkins of claiming that religion would disappear if it wasn't taught while at the same time claiming that human beings have a natural propensity or inclination for spiritual belief. If that's the case, it seems as though not teaching religion would have no effect on the emergence of its spiritual antecedents in human minds.

Furthermore, he's using the term "secular faith" because he's comparing the radicalism of modern atheists/secularists to a kind of religious fundamentalism, which isn't too much of a stretch in my opinion. It's similar to Hegel's critique of Enlightenment's view on Faith (i.e. it criticized Faith for irrational arguments while, at the same time, falling prey to the same irrational argumentation). John Gray isn't condemning atheism (in fact, I'm pretty sure he is an atheist, but I could be wrong), he's just illuminating the "fundamentalism" of contemporary atheist criticism.
 
There is irrationality in the atheist "movement," and in the famous atheists. I do facepalm sometimes reading Hitchens and Dawkins.

However, despite the absolutism, their rationality is far beyond guys who are scrambling for ways to justify modified versions of 3000-year-old myths, which are the guys who are their main opponents.

Imo, it sounds like he's trying to claim an equal footing of rationality between the likes of Hitchens and the likes of a fundie. They may both be as absolute in their arguments, but one side has a position based on some amount science, logic, and reason, and it's not the guys following books that say bats are a type of bird and hares chew their cud.

And as for humans having an inclination for belief and religion disappearing, I don't know if Dawkins touched on it, but gods were made up to satisfy psychological needs that humans don't have as much in the developed world. I know by tackling gods I'm not going for religions as a whole, but the majority of religions involve some form of theism, be it monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, etc.

Many gods fit the profile of a comforting delusion based on what the people need to be comforted about. I can give a comparison between two equivalent gods in different regions with different needs:

Cocijo (Zapotec) and Tlaloc (Aztec)

Cocijo is basically just a god of lightning and rain in the Zapotec pantheon, but in the Aztec pantheon, Tlaloc is far more important. He is the god of rain, water, fertility, and certain natural disasters. He had an importance second or equal to Huitzilopochtli, their god of war. Out of the two shrines on top of the great temple in Tenochtitlan, one was dedicated to Huitzilopochtli, and the other to Tlaloc.

The god that can supply rain and drinking water was just as important to the Aztecs as their god of war. But why doesn't the equivalent god have the same importance and functions in the Zapotec pantheon?

Because the Zapotecs didn't have to worry about rainfall. Just compare Oaxaca (where the Zapotecs were) to Mexico City (where Tenochtitlan was) and you'll see that the Aztecs were centered in a more arid region.

So the reason gods would die out is because in the developed world, things necessary for survival are more guaranteed, and comforting delusions are more unnecessary. Also, with more widespread education, children would be better-equipped to recognize comforting delusions as comforting delusions before they believe them.

However, that's just speculation. I can't actually make any real conclusion on it since I haven't observed any country go from staunch theocracy to majority atheist after a period of substantial economic growth and rise in standards of living.
 
There is irrationality in the atheist "movement," and in the famous atheists. I do facepalm sometimes reading Hitchens and Dawkins.

However, despite the absolutism, their rationality is far beyond guys who are scrambling for ways to justify modified versions of 3000-year-old myths, which are the guys who are their main opponents.

Imo, it sounds like he's trying to claim an equal footing of rationality between the likes of Hitchens and the likes of a fundie. They may both be as absolute in their arguments, but one side has a position based on some amount science, logic, and reason, and it's not the guys following books that say bats are a type of bird and hares chew their cud.

And as for humans having an inclination for belief and religion disappearing, I don't know if Dawkins touched on it, but gods were made up to satisfy psychological needs that humans don't have as much in the developed world. I know by tackling gods I'm not going for religions as a whole, but the majority of religions involve some form of theism, be it monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, etc.

I don't think he's claiming equal footing. To preserve my earlier comparison, Hegel didn't claim equal footing for Faith and Enlightenment; he believed that Enlightenment had more intellectual/logical ammunition, if you will, but it executed its argument poorly; it needed a radical self-awareness in order to overcome this logical disadvantage. However, Hegel believed that only Englightenment was capable of this self-awareness, while Faith could never be. Gray believes the same about science and philosophy, I think; they possess the capability to refine the logic of their arguments. I think he's just unhappy with the current popular trends in atheist criticism of theism, and sees them as undermining what they set out to do (i.e. they don't convert any, or very many, staunch believers to atheism, they only cater to the already-atheist masses; in fact, popular vehement atheism merely contributes to the growing intensity of religious fundamentalism).

There's a certain academic maturity when dealing in criticism of religion and spirituality, and I don't think people like Dawkins or Hitchens pursue that route. They're very intelligent and important thinkers, but they take argumentative short-cuts and cater to a growing popular agenda.

As for your explication of Mesoamerican deities, I don't think Gray is arguing one way or another that human beings have a natural propensity to create myths. I think most intellectuals, including Gray, would agree that primitive cultures explained natural phenomena with supernatural causes. If education refused to tackle the issue, as Dawkins suggests, it seems much more likely that certain people would gravitate toward such beliefs. Instead, I'd suggest that education is more necessary than ever to enlighten students as to the multiple natural causes and scientific theories for why phenomena occur in nature.
 
It seems I misinterpreted his argument. That's what I get for skimming the article. I've been seeing so much of this attitude around on the internet that I'm pretty primed to react to it:

atheists.png


And yes, the atheist movement is nowhere near as good as it could be. The people who spread the word do so in ways that come across as condescending and intolerant, whereas anyone who wants to go door-to-door to present the atheist viewpoint gets totally shit on by the atheist community.
 
I agree with you about that particular attitude, but I think Gray is pursuing a form of constructive criticism rather than a brash polemic against "annoying atheists." That's the way I read it, at least.
 
On Sunday the french and the greek will hold the second round of voting. Will they vote Golden Dawn and the National Front into seats? It's going to be interesting to see.