1. Comment #31033 by benperth on April 10, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Awesome! Really enjoy listening to to both Dawkins and Hitchens.
Will be listening at work today :)

Cheers.

Other Comments by benperth

2. Comment #31049 by Matalanifesto on April 10, 2007 at 7:34 pm

It was a fun event, and here is the first picture of me that has managed to find its way onto the internet, I'm in the top right near the light... ;)
Its good to listen to it again.

Other Comments by Matalanifesto

3. Comment #31061 by GodlessHeathen on April 10, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Anyone else find Ruth Glendhill's review of the event induced an urge to bang one's head on one's desk?

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

4. Comment #31078 by Janus on April 10, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Anyone else find Ruth Glendhill's review of the event induced an urge to bang one's head on one's desk?

Yes.



Other Comments by Janus

5. Comment #31081 by MichaelJSimpson on April 10, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Brilliant debate from Hitchens and Dawkins.

Ruth Glendhill's review is an exercise in logical futility: no matter how clear or convincing Dawkins et al. were, and despite the fact that she voted for the motion, she still believes that "God is trying to tell" her something.

I say, it's not God. It's life. LIFE is trying to tell you something. Life and logic. For goodness sake LISTEN.

Other Comments by MichaelJSimpson

6. Comment #31185 by ghostbuster on April 11, 2007 at 9:28 am

Were right back to the computer analogy again; no matter how you fuss about, the same old crap gets reiterated--no matter how much rational, logical, evidenced-based arguments you use, a virus-infected mind goes into a temporary freeze, shuts down then re-starts in exactly the same place. Hence, why the minds of children should not be infected in the first place. However, one of the best ways to un-plug the religious propaganda is in the study of comparative religions. Even a child's mind can grasp that all can't be true and none can be proven, so all are as equally mythical as the other. The majority of religious people adopt the religion of their family and/or culture; they have no idea about "the others" and they also have to idea about the origins of their religion, how truly one story can be found in other traditions, founded often in ignorance/fear of natural events interpreted by precursor cultures--events that have very scientific, practical explanations. Wouldn't it be rather curious to find an adult who thinks thunder is really angels bowling? And yet we have them believing even more ludicrous stuff. It is why it is essential to remain a secular culture so truth can put leaks in the dogma dam, especially in the minds of the young.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

7. Comment #31192 by P. Dacey on April 11, 2007 at 9:59 am

It was an interesting listen but, unfortunately there was no debate. Does anybody know where we can download the whole thing, rather than just the six statements given in the mp3s above?

(that said, I am grateful for the links!)

Other Comments by P. Dacey

8. Comment #31193 by Rtambree on April 11, 2007 at 10:04 am

7. Comment #31192 by P. Dacey

You're right. There was no debate. Those who opposed the motion effectively redefined religion to some vague notion of doing good.

Furthermore there was no structured opportunity after the six statements to actually specifically refute the opponents' arguments one by one.

Other Comments by Rtambree

9. Comment #31374 by PeterK on April 12, 2007 at 7:33 am

Some of us, I suspect quite a lot, are not religious for comfort. It is because we need to be battered, reduced, to have our monstrous egos squashed so we can control them properly. Speaking entirely for myself here of course.

I'd like to see how mankind would conduct themselves if they DIDN'T feel battered, reduced without their egos squashed. Maybe our general self-esteem, creativity, self-awareness, joy of being alive and general happiness would increase signifigantly. Hey, maybe atheism would be a good thing after all!

Other Comments by PeterK

10. Comment #31407 by samguzman on April 12, 2007 at 1:26 pm

C.S. Lewis said that if you are an atheist, you have to believe that every religion is entirely wrong; if you are a Christian, you only have to believe that the other religions are wrong, but not entirely. They may very well have a hint at the truth and still be wrong.

Any man who can look at the immense complexity and underlying order of the universe and deny the existence of God is an arrogant fool, no matter how intelligent he may be. Every day I read science stories that proclaim excitedly "we figured out how this works!" They remind me of a little boy turning on the light switch in an immense factory and being excited that he discovered how to turn on the light. He's just scratching the surface. Humans are not as great as we make ourselves out to be. As much as we laud our own intellects, just spend 10 minutes reading the news headlines, filled with bloodshed and violence, and you will learn what happens when man denies his creator and acts like what you claim he is; nothing more than an animal.

Other Comments by samguzman

11. Comment #31414 by landsnark on April 12, 2007 at 2:03 pm

"Any man who can look at the immense complexity and underlying order of the universe and deny the existence of God is an arrogant fool, no matter how intelligent he may be."

How astoundingly arrogant and foolish. At once, you 1) assume that no one in the universe, past, present or future is capable of explaining something you do not understand, and 2) accuse atheists of being arrogant and foolish. The mind reels.

Other Comments by landsnark

12. Comment #31435 by DistrictSelectman on April 12, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Grayling had me and then he lost me. Dawkins was very effective, but I think Hitchens was the most persuasive because he didn't get bogged down in "what Scripture says." Of course the fundies are the major problem in the world, but I think it's time for atheists to focus on the rhetoric of the moderate religious. The fundamentalists are looking for power and if they get more power from shouting nonsense than from facing reality, the most persuasive argument in the world is useless. The real moderates, however, are begging to be disabused of their superstition. Tell people like that rabbi, if you want to burn incense and keep kosher and put oil or ashes on your forehead, knock yourselves out, but just acknowledge that you aren't morally superior to atheists.

Other Comments by DistrictSelectman

13. Comment #31447 by Ezra on April 12, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Well you may not know exactly what is logically or reasonably possible to explain within this universe. I imagine a lot more can be explained and discovered however all our logic we gather is only applicable to the universe we gather/develop our logic. We can't assume that anything we know to be logical here would be logical in any other universe(s).

So when you start talking about what is or is not in any number of universes it's foolish (illogical). The Bible states this as well.

1Co 1:21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe.

If some are skeptical thats good but at the same time you can miss out on somethings that are true while being to skeptical to seek the truth.

Other Comments by Ezra

14. Comment #31459 by AtheistApostle on April 12, 2007 at 7:25 pm

The most interesting thing that I noticed is the fact that every Theist speaker almost completely discarded the idea of "God", and seemed only to embrace the idea of "comfort" and "goodness".

I find this interesting, because while blatantly denying it, they subconsciously realize and admit that their religion is simply a crutch to lean on when they feel emotional about something such as love, hate, sadness and happiness.

That is interesting, considering the fact that religion is based 100% on the idea that "God" exists, and that if he didn't there would be no religion or existence at all.

If that is true, then I would presume that the reasons for following a religion would be to praise and thank the "creator", and NOT because it is what makes them feel good.

Other Comments by AtheistApostle

15. Comment #31460 by Bonzai on April 12, 2007 at 7:38 pm

There is nothing wrong with needing a clutch.

A charcter of Hemingway's said, "According to Marx, religion is opium for the masses, for the same reason sport is opium for the masses, music is opium for the masses, sex is opium for the masses, the radio is opium for the masses..what do you want to do with the masses, operating on them without anesthetics?"

What do I care if some people believe in the tooth fairy if that makes them happy, as long as they don't push their beliefs on others?

Religious beliefs are like sex, as long as you don't copulate in public I don't care what kinky stuffs you do in the privacy of your bedroom and no one should.

I am all for keeping religion out of public discourse. If a religious person wants to express his opinions on subjects like stem cell research or same sex marriage and be taken seriously, he has to be able to frame his arguments in secular terms so they can be evaluated logically.

However, I can't see why it is necessary to exorcise "irrationality" from the lives of individuals. We all have our irrational hangups and unrealistic expectations. As an example, a recent psy study shows that most people have unjustified positive opinions about themselves. Religion is only one expression of irrationality.

Other Comments by Bonzai

16. Comment #31463 by TurboNerd on April 12, 2007 at 8:14 pm

So why doesn't Dawkins list the names of the opposing speakers above? Does he discount their position so much that he can't even give us their names?

Oh, and this wasn't a debate. This was just a series of opposing speeches. I would love to see a real debate on this issue. Interesting, but this was no more a debate than a press conference is a debate.

Other Comments by TurboNerd

17. Comment #31471 by AtheistApostle on April 12, 2007 at 8:44 pm

@Bonzai

I completely agree that there is nothing wrong with a crutch.

In fact, I think it would be a good idea to explore the "comforting" reasons to become an Atheist other than just the pursuit for the truth and reason.

It is obvious that this is what most people want or need, and it is also obvious that Atheism does not seem to provide this in the way that most Theists seem to be searching for it.

As far as keeping religion out of the public.

I would LOVE for this to happen, but on that same token I believe that Theism has such a strong grasp on the people of this world, that the ideas and realities of Atheism needs to be spread in much the same way that religion is. If not, then I believe that religion will continue to rule this planet.

Ironically, this is the same exact way that Theists think. I think it is important to leave that freedom of expression openly available to everyone, so that Atheists are also able to educate others about their ideas.

Other Comments by AtheistApostle

18. Comment #31481 by Bonzai on April 12, 2007 at 10:53 pm

Atheist-Apostle wrote:

>>I would LOVE for this to happen, but on that same token I believe that Theism has such a strong grasp on the people of this world, that the ideas and realities of Atheism needs to be spread in much the same way that religion is. If not, then I believe that religion will continue to rule this planet.<<

I understand where you are coming from and I can't say I disagree with your way of thinking from a political perpespective. But I don't feel comfortable with the idea of replacing theistic religions with some secular church, or "movement".

To me conformity and group thinking are bigger sins than believing in imaginary beings in organized religions. It is self defeating to turn ourselves into what we detest in order to win.

Other Comments by Bonzai

19. Comment #31531 by alanmackenzie on April 13, 2007 at 6:44 am

Anyone find that right-wing apologist, Roger Scruton intensely irritating? His speech was full of bald assertions, as if all he needed to do, was state the validity of something, and then move along while pretending that was all he needed to do in order to prove his point.

Other Comments by alanmackenzie

20. Comment #31667 by yeahok on April 13, 2007 at 6:45 pm

I'm not sure if I can agree with the motion. Religion does provide a comfort to millions of people that would otherwise be in distress, despite the fact that religion is probably a lie. I noticed Dawkins disagreed, although he seemed unsure, but he didn't really go into why he disagreed. Like one of the debaters opposing the motion said, this debate was not about whether or not God exists, but whether or not Religion is useful.

There is no doubt in my mind that atheism is a much tougher and scarier thought than theism. For example, Christianity promises eternal life, just by accepting the idea that God died for your sins. Atheism, to the average person, would be terrifying compared to Christianity. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

Theism provides a comfort that atheism could never provide.

Other Comments by yeahok

21. Comment #31669 by Rtambree on April 13, 2007 at 6:54 pm

20. Comment #31667 by yeahok

>For example, Christianity promises eternal life

Don't forget, the Abrahamic Faiths also promise eternal torture if you misread the fine print. You have no feedback if you're on the right course for upstairs rather than downstairs.

If one of the religions were true, it wouldn't be consoling, it'd be terrifying. How would you know which one? Even if you were in the right religion (born lucky), how could you be sure you'd asked for forgiveness for every impure thought and praised the Lord enough and did enough good deeds, etc? What about all the conflicting laws? Did you always obey your parents in every instance? If not, you could suffer forever in the lake of fire. Eternal Gitmo with super-charged alligator clamps.

How consoling is that?

Other Comments by Rtambree

22. Comment #31671 by nerdfiles on April 13, 2007 at 7:23 pm

"Atheism, to the average person, would be terrifying compared to Christianity."

Yes, of course it's terrifying if you base its nature on the same characteristics of certain theisms which necessitate a certain religious belief (or figurehead to idolise). But atheism is nothing like any sort of theism and is not in itself the opposition to theism. It is the refutation against what theism's arguments are and thus what it presumes as true. If religious never proposed notions of "god," we would all be atheistic not in the sense that we can be atheistic by today's standards. The entire matter wouldn't even come up. Thus, atheism is a response to and is dependent on the existence of theism.

To me, it seems like people have come to equate the "atheist movement," if you will, to the "communist movement," insofar as the atheist movement, in its purest sense, is set out on some sort of predefined goal. It is a grand misconception that Marx's utopia or Plato's republic are some sort of attainable goals--as if they are real potentials. They are not--it is the work towards these goals which is what these theorists were striving to make people aware of.

Just like with this "atheist movement" Dawkins appears to be leading, it is not something which has a definite conclusion. What Dawkins has stated on numerous occasions that he is "promoting consciousness." It is self-evident that religion is wrong, and he is simply making these facts clear. He isn't saying that we should revel in atheist ideologies (whatever that means) or atheist systems to lead our lives. It is not "comparing atheism to Christianity." It is understanding what is absolutely untrue and moving on from there with reason.

Dawkins is not promoting "atheism." Atheism is just a label given to those who refuse to accept unintelligible propositions riding on the back of arrogance, intellectual laziness, political agendas, and often times outright dishonesty.

Other Comments by nerdfiles

23. Comment #31674 by Bonzai on April 13, 2007 at 7:47 pm

The idea of 'God' as some kind of big daddy looking out for us seems to be a rather recent invention (mostly Christianity). I have not looked into it systematically but a casual reading of history indicates that ancient civilizations didn't percieve the gods as sources of comfort or clutches to lean on. Instead they were the embodiment of everything nasty and unpredictable in life, and hence must be appeased and approached with great fear. The ancient gods were capircious, cruel bastards who were amoral and sadistic(The god of the Old Testament is a prototype of such a god, though he is particularly ill tempered and barbaric even comparing to other gods like Zeus)

I somehow don't think the ancients associated religions with the gentle, warm comforting feelings that many contemporary believers do. So yes, it seems it is possible to live without the cluth of religion, for if I am right, most people lived without it for most of history. Having said that I don't see the point of kicking the cluthes under people's arms.

Based on similar considerations I would argue that religion is also not necessary for morality. For most of human history the gods were not held up as models of ethical behaviour and the sources of morality. That seems to be a post Judiac concept.

Other Comments by Bonzai

24. Comment #31676 by Bonzai on April 13, 2007 at 7:58 pm

nerdfiles,

Part of your post is probably aimed at me. I am not saying Dawkins intending to start a movement or accusing him of trying to make himself a new prophet. I was mostly making an observation about some over zealous people he attracts to "the cause".

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #31697 by nerdfiles on April 13, 2007 at 10:54 pm

@Bonzai:

Whoops. I hadn't read your post. I'm not sure why I go on with the word "movement" and kept with it. Just a coincidence.

Other Comments by nerdfiles

26. Comment #31713 by Xptql on April 14, 2007 at 1:05 am

"To me conformity and group thinking are bigger sins than believing in imaginary beings in organized religions. It is self defeating to turn ourselves into what we detest in order to win"

I think that is the best statement said in this thread so far. The real problem I have is not with atheism, as I have no particular faith or belief in God, but rather this attack on all things supernatural as things to be derided and hated.

The second speaker on behalf of religion, who's name I never fully caught, made the point that 'It's not what you believe, but how you live your life.' In the same vein I could say, 'It's not always the idea you present, but the way you present it.' And for a person espousing reason, I have always found Dawkins to be far too Unreasonable to do so.

If one is truly to live without religion or God then I suggest simply doing so, in the best manner you can.

Always fear the Certain.

Other Comments by Xptql

27. Comment #31798 by nerdfiles on April 14, 2007 at 10:33 am

Dawkins isn't certain about anything but rejecting claims which are self-evidently wrong. He is certain religion is untrue with the same degree that you are certain you cannot fly or certain that intelligible, English speaking dragons with political agendas don't exist.

Often enough people fail to keep in mind the premise and background Dawkins is coming from--the background of a scientist. I find this puzzling since he goes to great lengths to explain that he is simply following what is evidenced. His language tends to be confrontational, so people assume he is taking the stance of someone of utmost authority when he isn't, and those offended merely instigate claims on his behalf.

It is a double standard to consider that when Dawkins says "I am certain about what is wrong because it has no reasonable or evidenced backing" it is incorrect while going about your lives not giving into any and every propositions made by anyone who claims to know the truth.

Untrue ideas are obvious. The idea of god and religion are simply those deep rooted in the human condition, so it's a bit more difficult to reject them because people feel they need ignorance. Admitting to and insisting that you require ignorance does not make your idea anymore true, and this is obvious. That is all Dawkins is saying.

Other Comments by nerdfiles

28. Comment #32214 by Youssef51 on April 16, 2007 at 7:53 am

"Any man who can look at the immense complexity and underlying order of the universe and deny the existence of God is an arrogant fool."

Any man who can look at the immense complexity and underlying order of the universe and ascribes it to the existence of a god is a scared little kid who believes every fairy tale he's ever heard and is terrified of his own shadow.

His Mama is calling him.

Other Comments by Youssef51

29. Comment #32627 by Joolx on April 17, 2007 at 4:20 pm

"Any man who can look at the immense complexity and underlying order of the universe and deny the existence of God is an arrogant fool."

Astounding intelligence in this comment!!!

It is mans language that makes 'rules' for what is considered order, and applies those rules, and then decideds if those 'rules' are complex.

Things just are, language to explain this is the complex part. For all we know there may be an alien race that has encompassed these same rules in a language that explains them in a simplicity that a garden snail could understand.

To fill the unknown knowledge gap with superstition and religious supposition is truely mans greatest folly.

Other Comments by Joolx

30. Comment #33859 by Mechoption on April 22, 2007 at 8:58 am

"What do I care if some people believe in the tooth fairy if that makes them happy, as long as they don't push their beliefs on others?" -> You happen to know religious types that don't "push their belief" on their children ??

"Religious beliefs are like sex, as long as you don't copulate in public I don't care what kinky stuffs you do in the privacy of your bedroom and no one should." -> I agree, but again religious people don't keep it in their bedrooms but it spreads into their kids bedrooms? Is that fair on the kids to be indoctrinated and brain washed by their parents choice in which religion is "best"?

Other Comments by Mechoption

31. Comment #33864 by Bonzai on April 22, 2007 at 9:55 am

>>You happen to know religious types that don't "push their belief" on their children ??<<

Yeah, my parents. When I was really little they took me to Church when they went. But when I got a little older, like 12 or 13 I told them I didn't believe and refused to go with them anymore. At first they tried to persuade me that I was wrong. But after a few weeks they just dropped it.

Now I think I am more guilty of attacking their religious beliefs unprovoked. I just can't help it but I know that is not nice.


>>I agree, but again religious people don't keep it in their bedrooms but it spreads into their kids bedrooms? Is that fair on the kids to be indoctrinated and brain washed by their parents choice in which religion is "best"?<<

In general parents share their values with their offsprings, it is an integral part of parenting. If the parents happen to be religious it is unavoidable that their religion beliefs would imprint on the enviroment in which the children grow up. In that regard religion is just like other aspects of the parents' personalities. It is very natural that the parents' wordviews play a role in shaping the outlooks of their children.

But "indoctrination" and "brainwashing" are strong words.

Not all religious parents aggressively shove their religions down the throats of their children. Those who do are probably authoritarians who would have bullied their children into agreeing their ideas on other things (like politics) even if they are not religious. If mere sharing and encouraging religiosity count as "indoctrination" then all parents "indoctrinate" and "brainwash" their children in some ways, unless they are value free, personality free baby sitting robots or dead beat absentees who spread their DNAs around and move on.

I don't see religion as evil merely because of its presence. It depends on what you do with it. If as Dawkins insists, some people turn into hateful bigots and terrorists because of religious beliefs based on their own accounts, you cannot dismiss out of hand others who say with equal conviction that they become kinder, more generous and more empathetic human beings because of their faiths His argument cuts both ways.

Irrationality in itself may not be a bad thing,--for example, persistent optimism and courage in the face of defeat may not be very "rational". Some people here argue that "free will" does not exist. If they are right it would an irrational delusion to live as though you actually control your destiny, it is an unjustified "faith". But I would rather be deluded by the illusion of freedom than to gloat about how science has proved that we are all puppets on strings(besides what would be the point of gloating if even the act of gloating is preordained?)I think most people, including some of the the most lucid and hard nosed atheists would agree with my probably irrational take on free will.

On the other hand rationality itself is not necessary a virtue, it depends on the context and how you define "rationality". Many economists think that it is eminantly rational to be a greedy, selfish, one dimensionally profit seeking bastard. Followers of the Ayn Rand cult also think that they are super rational.

Since God doesn't exist, we must invent our values based on the human condition. There are truths in the sense of science, which correspond to "objective reality out there". But there are also "truths" with the small t. These are cherished ideas important to us and our subjective experience. An example would be the possible "delusion" of free will. So in some way the absence of God is precisely the reason why we can and must invent our own "truth" relevant to the human experience.

For some people, for better or for worse, they find their "truth" in their faiths. I think we can and should examin how their faiths impact on the way they behave towards others, but it is missing the point to dismiss them simply because they are not true in an objective sense.

Other Comments by Bonzai

32. Comment #35779 by Dr. Paul on April 28, 2007 at 8:46 pm

There is a vast difference between religion, and the words that were spoken by Christ, and his apostles.
Religion is the result of the Old Testament law, which produces works, but rejects salvation by grace through faith.( Ephesians 2:8-9 )
The law was given by God to mankind, not for the righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient,for the un-Godly and for sinners.( 1 Timothy 1:9 )
Therefore religion is un-profitable, as it directs mankind away from God, and not to God. Only Christ and his Holy Spirit, can draw men unto God. ( John 12:32 )
The Old Testament sect known as the Pharisees, was a religious group, which could be defined as follows: " A self-righteous or hypocritical person "
In conclusion, it was the pharisees along with their high priest ( religion ), that were responsible for the death of Christ, on the cross.

Other Comments by Dr. Paul

33. Comment #35889 by MrEmpirical on April 29, 2007 at 7:41 am

Re: Bonzai

Yeah, my parents. When I was really little they took me to Church when they went. But when I got a little older, like 12 or 13 I told them I didn't believe and refused to go with them anymore. At first they tried to persuade me that I was wrong. But after a few weeks they just dropped it.

To me, this is a perfect example of how subtle indoctrination can be. Your parents took you to Church from a young age, (unsuccessfully) laying the foundations for belief in adulthood. And then, when you wanted to exercise independent thought, they tried to persuade you to continue believing in their religion. Indeed, I sincerely applaud you for being able to resist the influence of your parents. I'm not sure how many 12-13 year olds would be able to successfully resist two powerful authority figures.

Now I think I am more guilty of attacking their religious beliefs unprovoked. I just can't help it but I know that is not nice.

This is going to sound condescending, so I apologise in advance: Even to this day, the influence of indoctrination can have an effect on your emotions. You feel guilty for attacking your parents' beliefs, even though you probably did not attack their beliefs any more than you would attack other types of irrationality. I doubt your parents feel guilty for trying to indoctrinate you.

You mentioned that it is only natural for the values and beliefs of parents to be transmitted to their children. But I argue that it is wrong for parents to transmit beliefs that are utterly unsubstantiated. I argue that it is wrong for parents to transmit values that are based soley in unfounded dogma. So yes, it is only natural for such transmission to occur, but that doesn't make it right. I believe that parents should take more care to transmit only those beliefs and values that can be rationally justified.

I hope you don't think I'm being confrontational. Indeed, I've really enjoyed reading your posts.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

34. Comment #35977 by Dust on April 29, 2007 at 4:46 pm

>> At first they tried to persuade me that I was wrong. But after a few weeks they just dropped it.

Bonzai, your experience is interesting. My parents were not especially religious but when I was young they wanted to make sure they were doing the right thing by me and my sibs. They started going to church and we went to Sunday school. Well after a year, my father had read the bible cover to cover and noticed the preacher kept saying the same thing about sin and forgiveness, etc. He gave up and we were all relieved. 8-)


>>In general parents share their values with their offspring, it is an integral part of parenting.

Agreed. The problem I think is determining where to draw the line as a parent. The parent can insist on a large set of strict rules and behaviors including church attendance and a system of belief based on faith and apply a great deal of pressure, including heavy guilt. Or they can see the child as essentially an independent person and allow growth in whatever direction he/she finds compatible. When mom home-schools the kids to make sure they think like mom on religious issues, I think that is going overboard. It shows a lack of respect for the child's independence as a person. In effect the parent is saying – child, we don't trust you to make reasonable, rational choices based on your parents behavior as a role model, so we are going to apply a layer of indoctrination to insulate you from rational arguments you might encounter in the real world. We think our form of religiosity stands on rather weak logical grounds so we want to inoculate your mind to protect you from contamination by contrary ideas.
I share your aversion to criticizing theists, but I think it's a job that has to be done.

>>Irrationality in itself may not be a bad thing,--for example, persistent optimism and courage in the face of defeat may not be very "rational".

You make a subtle point here. However, the argument against living a life of religious faith refers to a different kind of "irrationality". Religion goes out of its way to be irrational. It accepts mythology as the foundation of life. Persistent optimism is often a reasonable stance to assume, depending on the situation.

The problem that we are all forced to deal with is that religiosity, whether moderate or fanatical, depends on and fosters belief without evidence: Faith. It is irrational and dangerous. Think of the Islamists and their religious motivations.

>>>Some people here argue that "free will" does not exist. If they are right it would be an irrational delusion to live as though you actually control your destiny, it is an unjustified "faith"… hard nosed atheists would agree with my probably irrational take on free will. "

Not really. Determinism is indistinguishable from freewill at the level we operate. The level of cabbages and Kings. This is not an unjustifiable faith like believing that God wrote the bible, and that heaven and hell are real places we are all destined to reach.


>>>For some people, for better or for worse, they find their "truth" in their faiths.
I would say for much worse. Many of the great wars and genocides have been due to these faiths, and they cause a great deal of death and suffering in the present day.

Other Comments by Dust

35. Comment #37472 by nathansmart on May 4, 2007 at 2:25 pm

If you don't believe in absolute morals, then anything you teach your kids can be considered brainwashing by someone who doesn't agree with your lifestyle.

Other Comments by nathansmart

36. Comment #45623 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Comment #31407 by samguzman on April 12, 2007 at 1:26 pm

C.S. Lewis said that if you are an atheist, you have to believe that every religion is entirely wrong; if you are a Christian, you only have to believe that the other religions are wrong, but not entirely. They may very well have a hint at the truth and still be wrong.

C.S. Lewis is full of shit when it comes to religion. I hate it when otherwise successful writers try to categorise people in absolute terms. I don't believe in God but there are some good moral teachings in the Bible. I don't call myself a christian because, other than my lack of belief in God, (among other things) I don't believe people should be stoned to death because they decide to work on the wrong day of the week.

Any man who can look at the immense complexity and underlying order of the universe and deny the existence of God is an arrogant fool, no matter how intelligent he may be. Every day I read science stories that proclaim excitedly "we figured out how this works!" They remind me of a little boy turning on the light switch in an immense factory and being excited that he discovered how to turn on the light. He's just scratching the surface. Humans are not as great as we make ourselves out to be. As much as we laud our own intellects, just spend 10 minutes reading the news headlines, filled with bloodshed and violence, and you will learn what happens when man denies his creator and acts like what you claim he is; nothing more than an animal.

Yawn. There's bloodshed and violence coming from those who don't deny God you cretin.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

37. Comment #344455 by DrZenith on February 21, 2009 at 8:26 am

Dr Spivey(?) the first speaker against the motion avoids the question completely by saying how so much of art and many of the world's great buildings wouldn't have existed without religion and 'sacred behaviour'; this is not the issue. In the 21st century religion, and religious differences, are more than ever, as Hitchens points out, at the heart of a majority of present wars and civil violence and hatred. It is religion which has caused these problems and which makes so many of them intractable. How incredible that unproven beliefs, lacking any evidence to support them can and have caused so much evil. And how evident it is therefore that we'd be better off without these nonsensical fairy tales.

Other Comments by DrZenith