Comment 45 by Saganic Rites :

Comment 13 by xsjadolateralus :

Hitchens laid out why our worldviews are simply irreconcilable, rather than just being in conflict, or struggling to find a better configuration, common ground. No, we are simply opposed. It's like asking if the two football teams competing in the super bowl could work together. .....

Why would they have to?

Because I for one have a lot in common with many theists. Just because someone is a theist doesn't mean I still can't agree with them on all sorts of other issues such as teaching evolution in school (believe it or not a lot of theists hate the creationist movement as well), the environment, etc. In fact as I think of it when it comes to political issues (abortion, prayer in school, evolution over creationism) most of my theist friends agree with me on all of them. And in politics you take as many allies as you can get.

However, if we take your analogy over to real football then the answer is a resounding 'Yes'. Consider the MLS; players from several teams will happily work together for the U.S.A. national team, just as over here the England national squad is made up of players from most of the Premier League teams. Just don't mention Terry and Ferdinand, but that's a side issue with nothing to do with either religion or team loyalty.

Yes, I thought the same thing. Sports teams usually don't take the rivalry with them off the field. They have friends on other teams and often join into efforts for charitable causes together. If anything the analogy of sports teams supports the idea that theists and atheists can work together.

The one part of Greene's latest book on multiverse (The Hidden Reality) that I found problematic was the chapter on simulated universes. The idea is that if we were all simulations in a very complex computer system we wouldn't know the difference. What's more the argument goes, as computers get more complex its inevitable that such life like simulations will arise and in fact the number of such simulations will be very large. So by probability its claimed that we probably already are just part of some computer simulation right now.

I have two major problems with this:

1) No such simulations exist nor is it at all certain they ever will. I've built some computer simulations. Part of the methodology for building a simulation is that you say right up front that you are not trying to model the whole world. The only way you can learn from a simulation is to constrain what you are modeling to some set that can be realistically defined and analyzed. And computers aren't magic, they have finite resources and very real constraints. For example even all the computers that have ever existed in the world working together still can't solve NP complete problems for non-trivial data sets. The idea that we will one day have simulations so detailed that the participants in the simulation will be conscious and won't realize they are in a simulation is a big assumption not at all proven to my satisfaction.

2) If we concede that such simulations may exist the theory is not testable. Of course testability is a problem with all these theories but I think its especially difficult here. Just by definition if our reality is a computer we can never know it. So essentially a model that says the world we think exists and follows natural laws is really just a simulation would behave no differently than a model where the world simply exists. There is no additional explanatory power from the idea that its a simulation and no testable hypothesis that could distinguish the simulation from the real world. By Occam's razor the idea that its a simulation provides no added value and can just be discarded.

Comment 31 by xsjadolateralus :

Just deal with comment 28, if you can.

We don't respect psychos because they are harmful, obviously. I don't respect religious people because of what they endorse, fund, indoctrinate, etc. is obviously harmful.

I hope you would agree that one is a lot more obvious than the other. I doubt that I could ever find a psychopath or child rapist that I thought was a good person. My claim though is that I absolutely have known religious people that were good people, in fact many of the most moral people that I personally know, people that I consider more moral than myself, are religious.

It seems to me that if you reflexively classify all religious people as the equivalent of psychos you yourself are starting to be an atheist fundamentalist. If you believe in reason, you believe in rational debate with people that disagree with you, even if you think their beliefs are harmful. Of course there are limits to reason. You don't try to reason with a child rapist you put him in jail. But most beliefs aren't psychopathic child rape. Most of my friends have at least one belief that differs from mine and that I find harmful: abortion, healthcare, US wars, global climate change, torture,... I think that most people that have views on those issues that are different from mine have harmful views. That doesn't mean I will stop talking to them or possibly working with them on issues where we agree.

Even if a religious person doesn't commit any acts of physical harm personally, they are still contributing to it by A. Accepting christianity and it's harmful claims and B. by endorsing religious people who do obvious harm.

If you think that a man dying on a crucifix for you to be free of responsibility firstly WORKED and secondly makes sense, you are believing something false and harmful. This gives power to those who use it to do obvious harm and even has harmful psychological implications.

That's why your arguments don't even have a chance.

My argument is not that I think religion is right or good. I don't. My argument is about how to relate to religious people. I live in San Francisco. People here believe all kinds of crazy stuff. I have friends who believe that a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that vaccines are a hoax of the government and big pharma,.. One of my friends thinks she's a witch. I think all these beliefs are wrong and to some extent harmful. Does that mean I stop talking to these people or just start calling them names? For me it doesn't. If you really started excluding everyone who believes something you think is wrong from your set of possible friends that set would be very small. I find it boring to talk to people who agree with me on everything anyway, or rather I would if I could ever find one.

Comment 21 by casaoui-cool :

...

Even more than my belief in atheism is my belief in reason. And to have reasonable debates and analysis with others its essential that you treat people with respect even when, especially when, you disagree with them.

Exactly :

I can only agree with you, my friend : very wise words you put there , for us all to reflect on indeed .

Thanks.

It's really amazing to see how many of these kindda self-declared rational atheists behave so irrationally & exclusively ,if not via a fascist way , excluding all non-atheistic thought via these silly undemocratic irrational destructive ways ,unfortunately enough .

Why can't people just let everybodyelse believe in what she/he wanna believe in ?

When are we , humans, gonna stop pretending to possess or monopolize the truth ?

The very simple fact that what we do know is almost nothing compared to what we absolutely do not know & the fact that every single human being seems to have a certain amount of free will, should be reasons enough for us all to be more tolerant with each other , more compassionate ....more nice to each other .....showing our compassion for our mutual ignorance , ......................

I agree. Socrates is one of my favorite philosophers and that is essentially what he said, the starting point for true knowledge and for a moral life is realizing how little we really know about the world around us.

Comment 23 by xsjadolateralus :

Comment 20 by Red Dog :

Comment 17 by xsjadolateralus :

Comment 16 by xsjadolateralus :

However, its ridiculous to automatically assume that just because you disagree with someone on a particular issue that you treat that person with contempt until they agree with you.

Hypothetical:

Person A thinks person B should die. Person B disagrees and gives reasons. Person A disregards reasons and insists person B should die.

Well, by your standards, we shouldn't treat person A with contempt. Nor those who think we should be splattered on pavement, bombed to annihilation, take away child/woman rights, secularism. We shouldn't treat them with contempt.

I don't see what that proves. Are you saying that all theists want to kill you? Or all theists want to kill some innocent person? I think one mistake you may be making is to assume that all theists are like Rick Santorum and his followers. They aren't. Again, I've personally worked with theists who are pro-choice, feminists, and work amazingly hard (much more so than I ever have or will) to help make this world a better place.

Psychopaths, we shouldn't treat those persons with contempt? Child rapists? You can see where I'm going here.

No actually I'm not sure where you are going. Are you saying every person who believes in God is psychopath or a child rapist? I assume you see how ridiculous that statement is. So then what are you saying? I'm not talking about psychopaths or child rapists. I'm talking about people like my ex-girl friend who is a concert pianist, and beautiful, and also a born again christian. And... I hope you are sitting down... she is also pro-choice and a feminist and a million times more honest and compassionate than I ever could hope to be.

Grow up. Its comforting to believe that the world is black and white. That anyone who disagrees with you is evil but the real world is seldom that simple.

No, it isn't so simple. Some people need to be held accountable to what they say and do and sometimes contempt is the apt response.

Some theists deserve contempt. Of course. So do some atheists. (Ayn Rand, Joseph Stalin)

And you're an idiot...

Wow, way to gracefully DANCE around everything I said.

"What, what are you saying, huh, all theists are psychopaths, what"

You are more dense than bank vault walls.

The last refuge of someone who can't use reason, start throwing out insults. I responded to each of your arguments with a rational response. You ignored my rational arguments and just insult me.

First off, I said "A hypothetical", secondly, of course I wasn't saying all theists are psychopaths or want to kill me. That would be your idiotic translation of what I said.

I was using an analogy, a thought experiment to prove my point.

I was asking an honest question. I realized it was a hypothetical question and I didn't think you meant that all theists were psychopaths. That's why I said "I assume you see how ridiculous that statement is." I truly did not and still don't see what the point of your statement was. Of course psychopaths and child rapists are bad. But as you agree all theists aren't child rapists or psychopaths so what does your original statement about psychopaths and child molesters have to do with a general discussion about whether its possible for atheists to ever work with theists? (I.e. work with the theists that aren't child rapists and psycopaths)