Sam - The Korea Herald
Posted: 03 November 2006 06:56 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1024
Joined  2006-09-13

http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2006/11/04/200611040017.asp

Interesting article that apparently comes out tomorrow…?

I just don't understand how people miss Sam's message and try to twist the words of what he's saying. "Extend an olive branch" ...HELLO. That's what he's doing with Conversational Intolerance.

People are still clinging to the idea that god exists - and so they are CHOOSING to not understand the argument. If you can't seperate your belief for a 15 minute conversation about - mythology, theology, philosophy, etc ...Then by your own devices, you're not going to "hear" the argument.

People are saying he's attacking everyone as if they're fundamentalists and that he should be teaming up with moderates. #1, No he's not. And #2, I disagree - what he is doing is putting true perspective out there that has elevated the conversation - some just either can't attain that height or choose not to.

Either way, if you don't understand the argument your thinking is still blinded by religion and/or faith. How many times do people have to make the connection between Zeus, Ra, Satnam, Appolonius, etc. before people understand that ALL GODS ARE MANMADE. After a period of time, they are all relegated to MYTHS and legends. Simply put, cultural icons.

So, we do away with the term "atheist" - we concede we're not trying to disprove the Biblical god anymore than we're trying to disprove Zeus or Allah. We're simply saying that with hundreds upon hundreds of religions created over the history of mankind - there is something spiritual about our existence, that does not need to be found in a holy book - it's already within us.

There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist" because how can you be a fundamental extremist about observation, evidence and rationality? One side of the debate concedes that god exists even before the argument starts. The other side of the debate says that there are a multitude of holy books on hand, all with different dogmas and creators - so why must we start the conversation with the #1 principle being that god "already" exists…?

The burden of proof lies at the hands of the believer - not the skeptic.

 Signature 

“All religions are valid, NONE are literal.” -Joseph Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2006 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2006-09-18

Very well put, I agree completely.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2006 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“3n7r0py”]
There is no such thing as a “fundamentalist atheist” because how can you be a fundamental extremist about observation, evidence and rationality?

You’ve clearly never dealth with Objectivists.  Here is a perfectly good example of secular fools who go around screaming at the top of their lungs the word “rationality” while spewing forth fallacies that don’t really exist but were created by the novelist Ayn Rand.

Rationality and reason are not the exclusive playground of athiests.  Indeed, if all secularists were rational and reasonable no one would be a Marxist.  And yet, despite clear proof against this secular dogma, Marxism persists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2006 11:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1024
Joined  2006-09-13

Well, I was referring to the context in the religious argument. Clearly there are people who use rationality and logic in all forms of discourse - just not in the religious groups.

And by using rationality/reason/logic in any conversation, you’re not being a “fundamentalist” you’re being an observer. Dogma is the sin here, not thinking.

 Signature 

“All religions are valid, NONE are literal.” -Joseph Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2006 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  334
Joined  2006-11-06

[quote author=“3n7r0py”]Well, I was referring to the context in the religious argument. Clearly there are people who use rationality and logic in all forms of discourse - just not in the religious groups.

And by using rationality/reason/logic in any conversation, you’re not being a “fundamentalist” you’re being an observer. Dogma is the sin here, not thinking.

(I wrote guest post.  Hadn’t mastered the signing in thing yet.)

“Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.”  (Hume)

Religions use rationality all the time.  Secular forms of discourse are not any more likely to be rational in virtue of their secularity.  (And lumping such things as Stalinism or Nazism together under the rubric of religion as Harris does in his book is a bit disingenuous.  That’s not a point against religion, that’s a point about human psychology.)

Many fine minds thought up dogma and reasoned about dogmas.  But let’s be clear:  you’re really only talking about Christianity when you critique dogma (because Islam and Judaism, being legalistic rather than doctrinal religions, don’t really have dogmas).  But just take a look at the debate between the Greek Orthodox and the Latin Orthodox (Catholic) Churches over the filoque clause in the Nicean Creed.  They were engaged in serious reasoning.  It’s true, they presupposed the axiom that “There is a God.”  But then again, they weren’t trying to convince anyone that there was a God; no one was in doubt as to the truth of the axiom.  They were trying to discern His, Its (pity there’s no neuter in English) nature (or rather the structure of the Trinity).

But you’d still say you want proof that God exists.  But what proof would be adequate?  And how much proof would you require?  Perhaps you’d demand nothing less than God sitting down with you for a beer which was videotaped and simultaneously witnessed by thousands.  Of course, it just might be the case that if there is a God, He has better things to do than meet you for a beer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2006 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1024
Joined  2006-09-13

Well, I think we’re missing eachother on how we define the term dogma. When Sam speaks of Hitler or Kim Jong Il he’s talking about unsubstantiated belief. (And yes, you can play semantics and call it a “policy” rather than dogma - but in any religious text, they’re the same thing.)

But on another note, there is no reason to believe in a god. The universe exists without one - we created god. One need only to look in a history book and see that mankind has been creating images of diving beings all throughout human history - trying to make sense of life and existence.

It’s like reading a book and adding in a character to explain why characters in the book behaved the way they did… It’s nonsense. Life is an amazing thing, but the ingredients for life are abundant in the universe. All you need is the right conditions - a planet like earth for us, maybe something different for other forms of life.

But to claim that any god (especially from a book written on one small planet) exists, discredits the beauty of life and takes away the amazement that we’re conscious and here at all.

 Signature 

“All religions are valid, NONE are literal.” -Joseph Campbell

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed