How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[Skashion]

Like I said, people like Dawkins do. He talks of organising atheist political power to counter religious political power. To me any pro-secularist is welcome aboard the train of secularism, theist or not whereas Dawkins probably wouldn't make such allowances, him being on record as saying he prefers the fundamentalist of the opposition. That kind of shit is why I think he and others of his ilk are unreasonable.

So you don't believe there's such a thing as agnosticism?

But Dawkins doesn't.
"You can believe there is a creator without having any further beliefs whatsoever." He acknowledges this.

As for him helping out atheist and secular groups counter religious encroachment on the state (mostly in the US) I applaud him. What's wrong with that?
I have never seen Dawkins try to exclude religious secularists from the train of secularism. He may criticise them on the the veracity of their beliefs but that is a seperate issue.

With regards to agnosticism, if at no time do you wander into a belief in god you are at all times an atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist just as you can be an agnostic theist or gnostic theist. A/gnosticism deals with knowledge. A/Theism deals with belief.
For instance, using my self as an example, I'm an agnostic atheist with regards to the notion that the universe was created by a deity. I don't actively believe that the universe was created by a deity but I don't claim to know that the universe was not created by a deity.
With regards to specific gods, such as the greek gods or the biblical god/s, and their descriptions, I am alot closer to a gnostic atheist, in that I claim to know that these gods do not exist.*


*of course it depends how people describe their God. My basis for claiming knowledge here is the logical contradictory nature of many descriptions of god.

I don't think he does. Dawkin's says his issue with believing in a creator is the worship of that creator. This, he says, is the reason for him being vocal on the subject and why he is not vocal about celestial teapots. Can you honestly claim that his atheism and his 'war' on religion are distinctly separate?

What's wrong with secularism? Absolutely nothing and if you think I'm saying that then either you can't read or you're being completely disingenuous. I'm annoying by that comment. I almost posted a picture of a straw man which is what I usually do in those circumstances.

He certainly doesn't speak of religious secularists in his organising of secularism.

He says explicitly that he does not want religious evolutionists with him against creationism because the true battle, for him, is against religion proper.

When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinism, Richard Dawkins's response was simply that the pope was a hyprocrite, that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred a honest fundamentalist.

From a purely tactical viewpoint, I can see the superficial appeal of Ruse's comparison with the fight against Hitler: 'Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt did not like Stalin and communism. But in fighting Hitler they realized that they had to work with the Soviet Union. Evolutionist of all kinds must likewise work together to fight creationism.' But I finally come down on the side of Jerry Coyne, who wrote that Ruse:

fails to grasp the real nature of the conflict. It's not just about evolution versus creationism. To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson [E. O. Wilson, the celebrated Havard biologist], the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, whilst religion is the most common form of superstition. Creationism is just a symptom of what they see as the greater enemy: religion. While religion can exist without creationism, creationism cannot exist without religion.

There several interesting and illuminating parts of that, not merely that Dawkins agrees that his greater war is against religion, not as mine which is pro secularism. So, that granted, it is hard to believe he would want religious secularists on his side.

Thanks for your explanation of agnostic and atheism, it does make sense but from where is your explanation derived? I note that Dawkins uses the terms in that way I am familiar with.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

OK - what's happened to JC's (not Jesus so don't lose it) pic of Freddie Titmuss from the bottom of page 11?

 

[ElanJo]

But Dawkins doesn't.
"You can believe there is a creator without having any further beliefs whatsoever." He acknowledges this.

As for him helping out atheist and secular groups counter religious encroachment on the state (mostly in the US) I applaud him. What's wrong with that?
I have never seen Dawkins try to exclude religious secularists from the train of secularism. He may criticise them on the the veracity of their beliefs but that is a seperate issue.

With regards to agnosticism, if at no time do you wander into a belief in god you are at all times an atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist just as you can be an agnostic theist or gnostic theist. A/gnosticism deals with knowledge. A/Theism deals with belief.
For instance, using my self as an example, I'm an agnostic atheist with regards to the notion that the universe was created by a deity. I don't actively believe that the universe was created by a deity but I don't claim to know that the universe was not created by a deity.
With regards to specific gods, such as the greek gods or the biblical god/s, and their descriptions, I am alot closer to a gnostic atheist, in that I claim to know that these gods do not exist.*


*of course it depends how people describe their God. My basis for claiming knowledge here is the logical contradictory nature of many descriptions of god.

I don't think he does. Dawkin's says his issue with believing in a creator is the worship of that creator. This, he says, is the reason for him being vocal on the subject and why he is not vocal about celestial teapots. Can you honestly claim that his atheism and his 'war' on religion are distinctly separate?

What's wrong with secularism? Absolutely nothing and if you think I'm saying that then either you can't read or you're being completely disingenuous. I'm annoying by that comment. I almost posted a picture of a straw man which is what I usually do in those circumstances.

He certainly doesn't speak of religious secularists in his organising of secularism.

He says explicitly that he does not want religious evolutionists with him against creationism because the true battle, for him, is against religion proper.

From a purely tactical viewpoint, I can see the superficial appeal of Ruse's comparison with the fight against Hitler: 'Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt did not like Stalin and communism. But in fighting Hitler they realized that they had to work with the Soviet Union. Evolutionist of all kinds must likewise work together to fight creationism.' But I finally come down on the side of Jerry Coyne, who wrote that Ruse:

There several interesting and illuminating parts of that, not merely that Dawkins agrees that his greater war is against religion, not as mine which is pro secularism. So, that granted, it is hard to believe he would want religious secularists on his side.

Thanks for your explanation of agnostic and atheism, it does make sense but from where is your explanation derived? I note that Dawkins uses the terms in that way I am familiar with.

You've said it for me. Dawkins is fighting religion/superstition. You initially said that people like Dawkins don't distinguish between merely thinking that the universe was created and religion:

The difference I see between myself and many 'vocal' atheists is that I am not possessed of the notion that, itself, belief in God is harmful. The baggage of religion, of cults and various other exploitative religion-affiliated organisations is one I disassociate from belief in God. You can believe there is a creator without having any further beliefs whatsoever

You're seeing a difference here where there is non. Dawkins, Hitchens etc. aren't fighting against Deism are they? They may question the grounds for that belief but that's a different subject.

I never said/meant that you thought secularism was wrong. Idon't know why, when my initial response wasn't in regard to secularism, we're even talking about secularism tbh. With that in mind, and not wanting to get bogged down in the alleged tactics of Dawkins' secularism. I'll leave it there.

My take on a/gnosticism and a/theism is derived in pretty much the same way I derive any definition. Dictionaries, their translations, their use etc.

 

[johnny crossan]

OK - what's happened to JC's (not Jesus so don't lose it) pic of Freddie Titmuss from the bottom of page 11?

sorry sfb here's toeless tweaking Titters again

and is Mumps the end of the line for the Ultras?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmFHwrNxbE[/youtube]

A happy ending - Darwin & God both saved in the John Rylands.

 

[Skashion]

You've said it for me. Dawkins is fighting religion/superstition. You initially said that people like Dawkins don't distinguish between merely thinking that the universe was created and religion:

The difference I see between myself and many 'vocal' atheists is that I am not possessed of the notion that, itself, belief in God is harmful. The baggage of religion, of cults and various other exploitative religion-affiliated organisations is one I disassociate from belief in God. You can believe there is a creator without having any further beliefs whatsoever

You're seeing a difference here where there is non. Dawkins, Hitchens etc. aren't fighting against Deism are they? They may question the grounds for that belief but that's a different subject.

I never said/meant that you thought secularism was wrong. Idon't know why, when my initial response wasn't in regard to secularism, we're even talking about secularism tbh. With that in mind, and not wanting to get bogged down in the alleged tactics of Dawkins' secularism. I'll leave it there.

My take on a/gnosticism and a/theism is derived in pretty much the same way I derive any definition. Dictionaries, their translations, their use etc.

I haven't said it for you at all. He also fights against theism. My point was that the two were connected in his mind but certainly not in mine as referenced earlier by my point about celestial teapot atheism.

With regard to my secularism, you said:

As for him helping out atheist and secular groups counter religious encroachment on the state (mostly in the US) I applaud him. What's wrong with that?

As if I had implied there was something wrong with it when I'm of the completely opposite view.

But there is a difference between myself and Dawkins. I am not against religion full-stop. I am against religion where it causes harm to an individual whether that be through state authoritarianism, laws for example based on religious teachings, or even state-funded religious schools, or individual acts of violence. That is my approach based on my libertarian views. Therefore what beliefs someone has, whether rational or superstitious, are none of my business whatsoever as long as they don't harm me or other individuals. Now, let us assume for a moment that Dawkins is also a libertarian. By declaring himself at war against religion, he must believe that all religion is necessarily harmful to every individual - an opinion I don't share. If he's not a libertarian, that's where we differ. It makes no skin off my nose because there is a very big difference between us whichever it is.

I shall make note when I describe my views in future as agnostic atheism.

 

[ElanJo]

You've said it for me. Dawkins is fighting religion/superstition. You initially said that people like Dawkins don't distinguish between merely thinking that the universe was created and religion:

You're seeing a difference here where there is non. Dawkins, Hitchens etc. aren't fighting against Deism are they? They may question the grounds for that belief but that's a different subject.

I never said/meant that you thought secularism was wrong. Idon't know why, when my initial response wasn't in regard to secularism, we're even talking about secularism tbh. With that in mind, and not wanting to get bogged down in the alleged tactics of Dawkins' secularism. I'll leave it there.

My take on a/gnosticism and a/theism is derived in pretty much the same way I derive any definition. Dictionaries, their translations, their use etc.

I haven't said it for you at all. He also fights against theism. My point was that the two were connected in his mind but certainly not in mine as referenced earlier by my point about celestial teapot atheism.

With regard to my secularism, you said:

As for him helping out atheist and secular groups counter religious encroachment on the state (mostly in the US) I applaud him. What's wrong with that?

As if I had implied there was something wrong with it when I'm of the completely opposite view.

But there is a difference between myself and Dawkins. I am not against religion full-stop. I am against religion where it causes harm to an individual whether that be through state authoritarianism, laws for example based on religious teachings, or even state-funded religious schools, or individual acts of violence. That is my approach based on my libertarian views. Therefore what beliefs someone has, whether rational or superstitious, are none of my business whatsoever as long as they don't harm me or other individuals. Now, let us assume for a moment that Dawkins is also a libertarian. By declaring himself at war against religion, he must believe that all religion is necessarily harmful to every individual - an opinion I don't share. If he's not a libertarian, that's where we differ. It makes no skin off my nose because there is a very big difference between us whichever it is.

I shall make note when I describe my views in future as agnostic atheism.

You did say it for me because you brought up the fact that Dawkins is fighting against religion/superstion - on the grounds of harm. Dawkins nor Hitchens has said that a mere belief in a creator (that being a belief without doctrine or scripture) is harmful. It's not religion or superstition.
Let's put it this way. If everyone who adhered to a religion today was suddenly a deist neither Dawkins or Hitchens would be fighting against this belief on the grounds of harm. They may, and probably almost certainly would, question the grounds of such a position but that's different.

As for the secularism thing. You made it sound like Dawkins' political fight against religion was a bad thing or something you didn't agree with. If that isn't the case then fine, my mistake. I got a little thrown off by that response - it didn't seem relevant to the part of your post that I highlighted.

As for your libertarian point, I'm also libertarian. I want rid of religion (both because it's harmful and untrue) and at the same time I believe people should be able to believe what they want. Let's take evolution for a minute. People are free to deny evolution but that doesn't stop me from telling them that they are wrong. I'm not intruding on their freedom by doing this. The same holds true for fighting against religion.

Now, let us assume for a moment that Dawkins is also a libertarian. By declaring himself at war against religion, he must believe that all religion is necessarily harmful to every individual

Why every individual?
You can be at 'war' against religion for more than one reason and for each religion for seperate reasons. You can be at 'war' with the Abrahamic religions because A. they are harmful and B. because they are untrue. You can be at 'war' with a religion that, at present, is not harmful for the sole reason that it's untrue.

I think it worth pointing out that illogical belief systems can have harmful effects on a great many people (if not all) in a "state democracy". An obvious example here would be that we get money (ie. a portion of our life) stolen off us to pay for religious schools.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

OK - what's happened to JC's (not Jesus so don't lose it) pic of Freddie Titmuss from the bottom of page 11?

sorry sfb here's toeless tweaking Titters again

The balance of the Universe is restored.


and is Mumps the end of the line for the Ultras?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmFHwrNxbE[/youtube]

A happy ending - Darwin & God both saved in the John Rylands.

 

[Skashion]

You did say it for me because you brought up the fact that Dawkins is fighting against religion/superstion - on the grounds of harm. Dawkins nor Hitchens has said that a mere belief in a creator (that being a belief without doctrine or scripture) is harmful. It's not religion or superstition.
Let's put it this way. If everyone who adhered to a religion today was suddenly a deist neither Dawkins or Hitchens would be fighting against this belief on the grounds of harm. They may, and probably almost certainly would, question the grounds of such a position but that's different.

As for the secularism thing. You made it sound like Dawkins' political fight against religion was a bad thing or something you didn't agree with. If that isn't the case then fine, my mistake. I got a little thrown off by that response - it didn't seem relevant to the part of your post that I highlighted.

As for your libertarian point, I'm also libertarian. I want rid of religion (both because it's harmful and untrue) and at the same time I believe people should be able to believe what they want. Let's take evolution for a minute. People are free to deny evolution but that doesn't stop me from telling them that they are wrong. I'm not intruding on their freedom by doing this. The same holds true for fighting against religion.

Now, let us assume for a moment that Dawkins is also a libertarian. By declaring himself at war against religion, he must believe that all religion is necessarily harmful to every individual

Why every individual?
You can be at 'war' against religion for more than one reason and for each religion for seperate reasons. You can be at 'war' with the Abrahamic religions because A. they are harmful and B. because they are untrue. You can be at 'war' with a religion that, at present, is not harmful for the sole reason that it's untrue.

I think it worth pointing out that illogical belief systems can have harmful effects on a great many people (if not all) in a "state democracy". An obvious example here would be that we get money (ie. a portion of our life) stolen off us to pay for religious schools.

As I've said before, with the celestial teapot atheism reference, Dawkins does believe God is harmful, itself, because it leads to 'worship'.

Other quotes, such as this one, show his maintenance of a link between the two:

If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis - is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. This is the main conclusion of the book so far. Various questions now follow. Even if we accept that God doesn't exist, doesn't religion still have a lot going for it?

055277331X, p. 189.

My point is and has been all along that he refuses to separate God from religion, and I've yet to see any quote from you to the contrary. The mere fact that he devotes two-hundred pages to disproving God demonstrates the connection.

I am not suggesting for a minute that Dawkins is not within his rights to say what he wants about religion. That's not the point I'm making. His point that religion shouldn't be placed on a pedestal beyond criticism is one I vehemently agree with. The libertarian point I'm making is that you shouldn't make someone else's business your own unless they are causing harm. For this reason, I don't care even slightly whether religion dies or flourishes as long as it doesn't cause harm. Dawkins in his 'war' against superstition would I think:

I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.

055277331X, p. 57.

I would agree on your last point that is harm. I have already expressed that sentiment earlier.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

You did say it for me because you brought up the fact that Dawkins is fighting against religion/superstion - on the grounds of harm. Dawkins nor Hitchens has said that a mere belief in a creator (that being a belief without doctrine or scripture) is harmful. It's not religion or superstition.
Let's put it this way. If everyone who adhered to a religion today was suddenly a deist neither Dawkins or Hitchens would be fighting against this belief on the grounds of harm. They may, and probably almost certainly would, question the grounds of such a position but that's different.

As for the secularism thing. You made it sound like Dawkins' political fight against religion was a bad thing or something you didn't agree with. If that isn't the case then fine, my mistake. I got a little thrown off by that response - it didn't seem relevant to the part of your post that I highlighted.

As for your libertarian point, I'm also libertarian. I want rid of religion (both because it's harmful and untrue) and at the same time I believe people should be able to believe what they want. Let's take evolution for a minute. People are free to deny evolution but that doesn't stop me from telling them that they are wrong. I'm not intruding on their freedom by doing this. The same holds true for fighting against religion.

Why every individual?
You can be at 'war' against religion for more than one reason and for each religion for seperate reasons. You can be at 'war' with the Abrahamic religions because A. they are harmful and B. because they are untrue. You can be at 'war' with a religion that, at present, is not harmful for the sole reason that it's untrue.

I think it worth pointing out that illogical belief systems can have harmful effects on a great many people (if not all) in a "state democracy". An obvious example here would be that we get money (ie. a portion of our life) stolen off us to pay for religious schools.

As I've said before, with the celestial teapot atheism reference, Dawkins does believe God is harmful, itself, because it leads to 'worship'.

Other quotes, such as this one, show his maintenance of a link between the two:

If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis - is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. This is the main conclusion of the book so far. Various questions now follow. Even if we accept that God doesn't exist, doesn't religion still have a lot going for it?

055277331X, p. 189.

My point is and has been all along that he refuses to separate God from religion, and I've yet to see any quote from you to the contrary. The mere fact that he devotes two-hundred pages to disproving God demonstrates the connection.

I am not suggesting for a minute that Dawkins is not within his rights to say what he wants about religion. That's not the point I'm making. His point that religion shouldn't be placed on a pedestal beyond criticism is one I vehemently agree with. The libertarian point I'm making is that you shouldn't make someone else's business your own unless they are causing harm. For this reason, I don't care even slightly whether religion dies or flourishes as long as it doesn't cause harm. Dawkins in his 'war' against superstition would I think:

I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.

055277331X, p. 57.

I would agree on your last point that is harm. I have already expressed that sentiment earlier.

Let's cut to the chase here Skash. Titmus or Underwood? - no fence sitting now.

 

[Skashion]

Let's cut to the chase here Skash. Titmus or Underwood? - no fence sitting now.

I prefer all-rounders.