EPIC FAIL: The God Delusion

[Marduk]

again, you are completely making up strawmen. Whether Hitler was an atheist or not does not matter in terms of whether we should blame atheism for the atrocities of WWII. .

Okay, would you like to point out where at any point I mentioned that Hitler was an atheist

Even if he was, it took massive cooperation of millions of christians in the Nazi army in order for it to happen so don't put all the blame on him and his supposed atheism.

I'm putting all the blame on you for not knowing what you are talking about
1. I know Hitler wasn't an atheist, I have never said any different.
2. I don't think religous views have anything to do with genocide, anyone can do that
3. I think you should spend more time reading what people have said before you go all straw answering things they haven't

now last chance pg, get it right this time eh

Someone always has to bring up Hitler.

or in this case
someone always has to bring up Hitlers atheism and then pretend that someone else said it so they have something meaningless to contribute to a thread which is about something completely different

There is no delusion in Jesus Christ.

No excuses.

You decide.

should have known you'd show up in this thread 154, the title has two of your favourite things in it

 

[Maia]

Eh. Certain things about TGD were very good; certain aspects simply weren't as well argued or logically supported as Dawkins has received credit for. Also, he annoys me for other reasons.

And yes, I AM going to talk about Stephen Jay Gould again, so there. Nyah. NOMA: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life definitely had its flaws, but I think that if SJG had gotten a chance to write a longer 2.0 version book, he would have worked some of them out. I have to say that I think that TGD was Dawkins' own version of it in a lot of ways, and was even a 7-years-later response to it, which is supported by the fact that there's a section where he carefully compares and contrasts his own approach with that of SJG's NOMA.

Basically, Dawkins didn't think much of it ("I can't believe that Gould actually meant much of what he said, etc.), but he was being more than a little disingenuous there. He had to understand what SJG was doing when he decided to take the approach that he did, which was to make his book much less of a frontal attack than TGD but to end up with arguments that were actually far more devastating. (SJG was part of the only group of scientists who ever gave expert testimony in favor of evolution in a court case, btw, which Dawkins never did.)

Just to look at it from a pragmatic POV, does it really do any good to put the overwhelming majority of the population on the defensive to the degree that Dawkins did with TGD? Virtually everyone, aside from the rare exceptions, is only going to dig their heels in further. It's all very nice to come up a list of individual people who had their minds changed that way, but I think we're at too much of a turning point right now with public awareness to be satisfied with isolated invidual exceptions to the rule.

However, if moderate believers are lulled in with NOMA's "softly, softly, catchee monkee" tactics (kind of sneaky, but there you go,) they'll be receptive to new ideas. The great majority of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. That's just the reality of the situation. The real question is how these perceptions will be shaped, and how they might be changed. Aggressive confrontations will not work. Everyone has the right to do what they want-- but in reality, some approaches work, and some just don't.

P.S.: No, Hitler was definitely not an atheist!! I did quite a bit of research for a non-fiction book on Hitler in college, so I can speak with at least SOME authority on this one. He envisioned a reformed Christianity and he wasn't particularly happy with the religion as it was, largely because of its Jewish origins, but he was far from an atheist or agnostic (How this made sense when Jesus was Jewish, I don't know...) More importantly, he was either supported or not opposed by most churches in Germany (not to mention the nationalized state church.)

 

[Brainache]

Someone always has to bring up Hitler.

I blame his parents...

 

[Marduk]

I blame his parents...

were they atheists ?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Just for the record...there ARE atheists in foxholes. And manning SAWs. And cleaning the bliges at sea. And commanding the troops.

Thousands of them.

We just can't be as outspoken about our non-belief as a Xtian is allowed to be without professional and personal reprecussions.

 

[Marduk]

Just for the record...there ARE atheists in foxholes.

Thousands of them.

Did you do a survey at the time the quote was made ?
iirc it was in 1942

 

[bozman]

Marduk's shifting some goalposts, me thinks.

 

[Marduk]

Marduk's shifting some goalposts, me thinks.

Nope, all this has come out of people misinterpreting my claim that one thing religion was good for was rallying people together in wartime. That was my direct response to the question asked in the OP. You and some other people have been having a chat about Adolf, I've been backing away from that the whole way through

Religion is a useful tool in a poorly educated population.
Thats what its good for, thats what its always been good for

 

[Beth]

I'm an atheist. When I lost my religion I didn't need to replace it with anything. Everything I needed was already there: friendship, community, curiousity, etc.

And if you didn't need to replace it, why would anyone else?

Religion is like a virulent, violent, unpleasant, retarding and destructive disease within human society.

Why would anyone want to replace a disease with anything?

Did you ever consider that if people DO want to replace it, it's likely because they feel they benefit from belonging to a religion. That they do not consider it anything like a disease?

Just think if everybody spent that church time working for a volunteer organization helping the less fortunate. Infinitely better than praying for god to help.

Would you say the same thing about people who go to a movie every Sunday morning? Or watch TV on Wednesday nights?

When an unsuspecting woo-woo drops by to enlighten you poor sods, you guys get your sport by swarming on him or her like a ravenous pack of wolves. It's not about education here, it's about sport and circle-jerks.

Enlighten?

All we ask for are facts. So far, none are forthcoming from any religious quarter. It's all just the same misogynistic mythologies, twisted into a few different shapes to try to appeal to broader masses, who don't have the sense to question why they're handing over their money to a bunch of hucksters. The hucksters get wealth and power and the religious feel that they've saved their non-existent souls. Sounds like a win-win situation, but not from where I'm sitting.

The deluded can't really offer up much in the way of "enlightening."

I think the posts I've quoted above, including yours, serve as examples of what Limbo was referring to.

Incidentally, I disagree with the OP. Whether or not a replacement is needed, Dawkins shouldn't be promoting one. He's comes across as evangelical about his belief system as it is. Add in an overt 'you should belong to this semi-religious group' message and he would be proselytizing.

 

[bozman]

Nope, all this has come out of people misinterpreting my claim that one thing religion was good for was rallying people together in wartime. That was my direct response to the question asked in the OP. You and some other people have been having a chat about Adolf, I've been backing away from that the whole way through

Religion is a useful tool in a poorly educated population.
Thats what its good for, thats what its always been good for

So why wouldn't you clarify your point initially instead asking a bunch of vaguely related questions? And your questions were obviously in the context of Hitler, so stop pretending like you had nothing to do with it.

 

[Marduk]

So why wouldn't you clarify your point initially instead asking a bunch of vaguely related questions? And your questions were obviously in the context of Hitler, so stop pretending like you had nothing to do with it.

did you even read what I said. It was very clear and exactly the same claim that I later repeated for the Hitlerites
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6105500&postcount=19
theres nothing even vaguely alluding to Hitler in there
I asked no contextual questions about Hitler at all
Mark6 mentioned Hitler
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6106286&postcount=39
I merely responded to Pgwentholds claim
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6106286&postcount=39
that Hitler never killed anyone

apart from that youve all fallen foul of Godwins law, so stop blaming me for someone elses error
ok

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
The strongest rebuttal remains rooted in reality. "Religion is required if we are to keep the dregs in order. Most people are too stupid to understand science anyway."

One needn't understand science if we present the proper message, science is successful, god beliefs are not.

As long as the skeptic message is about the lack of evidence for gods, theists will continue to believe they are gaining something from their god beliefs that atheists just don't get. But if we shift the message to one of, "You pray. I'll take modern medicine, thank you", or similar messages, I expect progress will be quite a bit faster. It still means decades, maybe centuries or more, but it seems to me that evidence of science's success is the message to promote, not evidence against gods existing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Did you ever consider that if people DO want to replace it, it's likely because they feel they benefit from belonging to a religion. ....

A sense of community and a sense of belonging do not require god beliefs, as you know. So keep the community and drop the magic sky daddy. That just doesn't seem to be a barrier to change.

OTOH, if it is the fantasy one derives benefit from, it is not simply "belonging to a religion". It might be mistaking the elements for belonging with the magical thinking, or mistaking the magical thinking with the elements of belonging to the community.

I'm not saying both motivations are not often merged, because of course they are. If one believes in sky daddies, it makes sense one would find community with others who also believed. But I think we might want to separate out the two issues when examining what people need to replace religion.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Nope, all this has come out of people misinterpreting my claim that one thing religion was good for was rallying people together in wartime. That was my direct response to the question asked in the OP. You and some other people have been having a chat about Adolf, I've been backing away from that the whole way through

Religion is a useful tool in a poorly educated population.
Thats what its good for, thats what its always been good for

You seem to be skipping over the fact that religion is what Hitler used to start the war. Sure, Churchhill using religion to fight the Germans was like using a fire-break to stop a forest fire. It's effective - but only if you can't stop the jerk-off that started the fire in the first place.

 

[H3LL]

Did you ever consider that if people DO want to replace it, it's likely because they feel they benefit from belonging to a religion. That they do not consider it anything like a disease?

My apologies for the analogy.

It's more like after a protracted recovery from heroin addiction and then going shopping for crack cocaine.

It makes no sense to replace one with the other.

Better?


.

 

[cienaños]

My apologies for the analogy.

It's more like after a protracted recovery from heroin addiction and then going shopping for crack cocaine.

It makes no sense to replace one with the other.

Better?


.

H3LL, you're missing the point. The big picture has to do with justifying the need for morals, not how mental disease or mental retardation affects the setting of dumass morals.

 

[Orphia Nay]

 

[Her Dark Star]

How self-centered of you.

Yup. It's like a support group where the smart kid clique can hang out and pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for being so very bright. When an unsuspecting woo-woo drops by to enlighten you poor sods, you guys get your sport by swarming on him or her like a ravenous pack of wolves. It's not about education here, it's about sport and circle-jerks.

I haven't read TGD, but I spent years at his forum before it went down, and I have heard Dawkins vent his spleen before, and his fanbois do a pretty good job of regurgitating his crap again and again. The man is a fool. And I say all that as someone who opposes religious fundamentalism.

How is it self-centered to offer an opinion on what the author was conveying?

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that most of the people on JREF are likely to be familiar with the arguments in TGD and will have already made their decision on those matters. I do realise that the phrase "preaching to the converted" was not the most appropriate given the context and may have been misleading lol. My apologies.
Yes I agree that some people can be unfairly prejudiced or narrow-minded, regardless of the content of their personal beliefs, and that JREF is as subject to that as anywhere else. I strive to be open-minded and would love to be enlightened (especially as I was brought up regularly attending a Buddhist monastery!) and I would also like to see informative and interesting debate rather than knee-jerk reactions and character assassinations.

I have also witnessed Dawkins in full rant mode and its not a particularly pleasant sight and no, I don't appreciate 'fanboys' who repeat his statements without apparently thinking about them either.

However, to return to the book. I certainly don't think that Dawkins provides any great answers in their but as stated it might not be a bad introduction to the field for those whose education has mostly been on the other side of the fence.

In terms of what could replace religion and whether it needs to be replaced? Religious communities do sometimes have great virtues, compassion and charity, cohesion, focus etc. However I don't believe that these virtues have much to do with the metaphysical concepts of a religion and all these positive things could be carried forward without it. It would perhaps still leave the issue of spiritual comfort unanswered, uncertainty makes us fearful, but personally I believe that uncertainty is a good thing. Without it we can't learn and claiming to know the absolute truth or trusting the carte blanche of 'Deity has a plan' is I think counter-productive to our development. So to me, no we don't need religion in its current sense but that doesn't mean that there might not be something beneficial along soon.
Hope that wasn't too much spleen-venting.

 

[H3LL]

H3LL, you're missing the point.

I was more interested in my point not the point - whatever that was and wherever in the thread it started.

 

[Geezer]

But you're not an idiot. I want to save the idiots!

Wait. Huh?

I'm not saying that I want to kill the idiots but how about if we remove all warning labels and let nature deal with them?

(stolen and paraphrased from some comedian who's name I can't remember)