Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

Ok. What is your view of Dawkins then? An arrogant douchebag?

[Siquo]

Not even. He's a fundamentalist. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you.

[Chris_24]

I wouldn't say Dawkins treats religious people with contempt or disdain, and I've read a couple of his books. Could you post a video or something where he does this - I've always seen him trying his best to keep cool and treat people with respect (note people, not their ideas) despite their - sometimes contempt deserving - beliefs.

As for how to treat religious people, yes, respect. For the person. But you're right about their beliefs often inviting ridicule. So I'd say if you want to ridicule their beliefs, go ahead - so long as you still show respect for the person. But I wouldn't go around trying to tell people how silly their beliefs are. That would be as annoying to them as Jehovah's witnesses etc can be to us [atheists... and everyone else for that matter]. Wait for someone else to bring up the subject before you tell them your beliefs, since (and I'm sure this has been said before) everyone has a right believe whatever they want. But as soon as their beliefs start impacting other people you can tell them exactly what you feel - no respect for their beliefs needed.

Hope that made sense

EDIT: Fundamentalist? Fundamentalist atheist? What, he adheres strictly to the principles of not believing in God?

EDIT 2.0: Also Dawkins isn't a strong atheist (believes there is no god). He's an agnostic (or weak) atheist.

EDIT 2.1: Just realized starver (whose post edit 2.0 was about) didn't actually say Dawkins was a strong atheist. It seemed implied though, so I'll leave that edit up as an FYI

EDIT 3.0: OK, I realize this editing is getting out of hand but... I just re-read my post and - apart from realizing it could have been more eloquent - I noticed my original EDIT was a bit of a strawman. I just wanted to know exactly what you meant by Dawkins being a 'fundamentalist' and to state I'm not sure you can get an atheist fundamentalist and if you can I doubt Dawkins is it.

[Starver]

EDIT 2.0: Also Dawkins isn't a strong atheist (believes there is no god). He's an agnostic (or weak) atheist.

EDIT 2.1: Just realized starver (whose post edit 2.0 was about) didn't actually say Dawkins was a strong atheist. It seemed implied though, so I'll leave that edit up as an FYI

Yep, I put 'Dawkinsesque' as shorthand, because most strong theists definitely have the impression that he is what I'd term a strong atheist.

It's the way he's said "You know, if there wasn't any religious belief in the world, it would be a better place..." (paraphrasing, but an easy interpretation to make of various statements that are on record) that I think annoys them.  And, in fact, annoys me (self-proclaimed soft atheist, hard agnostic, strong apatheist and measurable against various other datum points on a number of other mutually perpendicular measurements) for bringing heat down on the various shades of atheism as if they were fundamentally (NPI) the same thing.  Because, from my POV, he seems to makes people think that the "only atheism is Strong Atheism" (everything from Denial to Blasphemy, depending on how much the 3rd party concerned is entrenched in the other camp), regardless of whether he is actually at that point on the scale.

I've heard that he may well have gone on the record to say "I'm not a disbeliever, just a non-believer" or similar, but I'm not exactly a follower of him on Twitter, etc, so while I don't have the animosity, misunderstanding and deliberate willingness to misinterpret him that some on the other side of that particular spectrum are going to bring to the ball-game, I'm still largely unaware of such a definitive statement and so feel I can at least point towards his 'rep' as a handy benchmark for strong atheism (and, being lazy, it's a good yardstick to explain that I don't reach up to when discussing this subject with 'the other lot'), even if I can't say for sure one way or another whether he even lives up to that self-same reputation.

[Chris_24]

Yeah, I get the feeling that is the impression most people have of him. He is an antitheist though (as am I) - though I feel I should probably define what I mean by this, as it would be very easy to assume it means someone who hates theists or thinks they shouldn't be allowed to believe, etc. but as it is starver provided me with a very good one:

"You know, if there wasn't any religious belief in the world, it would be a better place..."

I can see how being lumped together with other atheists (or even more annoying, anti-theists) despite having different beliefs would be very annoying.

As for his level of atheism, in his book "The God Delusion" he talks about a scale of belief, where 7 is certainty God doesn't exist and 6 is almost certainty. I can't remember what 5 is but 4 is 50/50 (I think) and the rest are the theist counterparts. He says he is a 6. It's a pretty useful scale actually since gets rid of tthe semantic arguments over atheist and agnostic etc.

EDIT: (Promise I won't edit this post as much) I just wanted to point out that with my definition (EDIT: Starver's definition) of anti-theism it could be more nuanced eg. by religion I mean faith-based and specifically the major 3 religions. Not that Starver was intending it as a definition in the first place, so no reflection on him

[MrWiggles]

Dawkins cant be a fundamentalist of a none belief. To be fundamental, you need an assertive belief, not a rejection.

[Siquo]

A rejection of a belief is a belief in itself. You believe the other belief is wrong. You mistake "belief" with "religion".

Also, when I said respectful, I meant respectful to the other person's belief, as well as his person. No belief is to be ridiculed, and none is ridiculous in and of itself. Even the belief that other beliefs should be ridiculed shouldn't be ridiculed. Even the belief that ridicules itself (discordianism) should not be ridiculed (although the members would be offended if you didn't). Most people are very protective of their belief (note that I throw a- and antitheism in that same group of beliefs). When I start to ridicule atheism here (and that's easy), lots of people will be offended. Offending people to make your "right" become "more right" is fundamentalism.

Thats a lot of parentheses, sorry.
Also, again my definition (yay semantics) of belief:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Belief is axioms and dogmas. Belief is what your world image is based upon. Everything in that image can be explained, until you reach a certain point. That point, is belief. Listen to "I believe there is no God". There's a belief in there. Everyone needs and has a belief to base the world he sees around him on. You can believe in nothing, yet that's still a belief. Belief in science, belief in logic, belief in a giant spaghetti monster, belief in one god, or many. Belief in circles, belief in rapture, belief in yourself or in others, belief the world is flat, belief the universe actually exists, belief you're not dreaming right now, belief the shadows on the cave-wall are real, belief that the shadows are shadows, believe in joy, in happiness, belief in love, belief in compassion, belief in getting ahead, belief in survival of the fittest. Belief that the sun will feed you, belief that crystals emanate positive energy vibrations, belief that light can be waves and particles, belief in a higgs-boson, belief in Occams razor. All belief.

Okay. Now I can no longer say the word "belief" without giggling. Said it once to many. 

[Micro102]

Siquo how would you define religion?

[G-Flex]

A rejection of a belief is a belief in itself. You believe the other belief is wrong.

No, it's not. A rejection of a belief only entails you not sharing the belief. You don't have to specifically think the other belief is wrong, you simply have to not believe that it's right.

I'd still like to know how the term "fundamentalist" applies here at all. "Fundamentalist" means a lot more than "arrogant".

Offending people to make your "right" become "more right" is fundamentalism.

Oh. Interesting definition you came up with yourself there.

That point, is belief. Listen to "I believe there is no God".

Not all atheists say that. In fact, I'd say that most don't.
There are differences between the following:

• I don't know if there's a "god".
• I reject the idea that there is a "god" due to lack of evidence.
• I reject the idea that there is a "god" due to evidence that one cannot exist.
• I believe that there strictly cannot be a "god".

You can have some combination of the above, sure, but there are subtleties involved between simply being unsure of something, dismissing an idea because there's no evidence put forth, dismissing an idea because there seems to particular evidence that it's not the case, and having a dogmatic belief that the idea is absolutely wrong.

Belief in science, belief in logic, belief in a giant spaghetti monster, belief in one god, or many. Belief in circles, belief in rapture, belief in yourself or in others, belief the world is flat, belief the universe actually exists, belief you're not dreaming right now, belief the shadows on the cave-wall are real, belief that the shadows are shadows, believe in joy, in happiness, belief in love, belief in compassion, belief in getting ahead, belief in survival of the fittest. Belief that the sun will feed you, belief that crystals emanate positive energy vibrations, belief that light can be waves and particles, belief in a higgs-boson, belief in Occams razor. All belief.

You're conflating extremely different and varied forms of "belief" here. You're attempting to say that they're all the same by making the definition unnecessarily vague without taking into account the actual differences involved, and that's extremely shady, in my opinion. Plenty of those things aren't dogmatic or axiomatic at all (although, certainly, they all necessarily rely on axioms at some point).

[Siquo]

An organisation around a belief (although a lot of people believe in a religion, rather than the belief that the religion was based upon), with rituals and laws. A lot of things can be a religion, in that definition. Science lacks rituals, so that's probably not a religion, but it can be treated as such, and a lot of people do believe in the self-invented Religion of Science. The Scientists are their Priests who are Always Right. Because God said so it was proven. Even though the scientists claim they are not priests and not right and it's just theories, the masses won't listen.


G-Flex, I'm sorry if I offended your belief.
But: not sharing a belief is not the same as rejecting a belief. Rejecting it is believing the opposite. Not sharing it, well, that's entirely up to you, but it also means you take the "third road". As in 1. "God is!" 2. "God isn't!" and 3. "meh." most atheists I know don't reall meh, they do have a stance, and therefore a belief in or not in some form of God.

And the last thing you said is what makes (or breaks) my definition. In the end, all we have are axioms and dogmas. It's up to us to choose which ones we believe in. And that is for every person to decide for himself. Ridiculing someone's choice is... Well, I believe that is a Bad thing to do. I, for one, like atheists in all their forms and philosophical conundrums. But somewhere, somehow, there's still a dogma.


Well, unless you're Socrates but he was mad (aka: wise) and therefore sentenced to death. 

[Neruz]

An organisation around a belief (although a lot of people believe in a religion, rather than the belief that the religion was based upon), with rituals and laws. A lot of things can be a religion, in that definition.

That's cool, because that's not the definition of Religion, but keep going, i'm sure you'll start making sense eventually.



Belief, by the way, means confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. By definition, if you have rigorous proof in something (like Gravity) you do not believe it, you know it.


I would argue that i do not believe that there is no God, rather i know there is no God. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that proves a God and logical excersizes all find that a God is an extrainous and unneccessary mechanism. In the face of this evidence, or rather lack thereof, belief does not enter the equation.

Finally, on the subject of ridicule. When you speak, the words coming out of your mouth are subject to analysis, and if they are found to be idiotic, then you will be ridiculed. If you don't like being ridiculed then stop saying things that are rediculous.

[Micro102]

I could say that the ritual is the scientific method.

[Neruz]

I could say that the ritual is the scientific method.

You could if you wanted to be wrong. The only definition of ritual that doesn't reference a religious purpose is "a prescribed code of behavior regulating social conduct, as that exemplified by the raising of one's hat or the shaking of hands in greeting."

Last time i checked, the scientific method was not a code of behavior.

[Micro102]

But your looking at definitions based on atheism NOT being a religion. In Siquo's definition of religion the only thing missing if a ritual so a definition of ritual relating to religion  can be used as it would make atheism a religion if true.

[Neruz]

But your looking at definitions based on atheism NOT being a religion. In Siquo's definition of religion the only thing missing if a ritual so a definition of ritual relating to religion  can be used as it would make atheism a religion if true.

A religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

No ritual is required. They are just usually involved. All you need to qualify as a religion is the first part: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."


As Atheism is not a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, it is not a Religion, and never will be, as by it's very nature it is the denial of Theism. Atheism can never explain the universe, all it can ever do is deny that other's people's explanations are correct.


"Science" could possibly fall into the definition of Religion if you squint your eyes a bit, but then you run into the problem with the words "a set of beliefs". The scientific method, by it's very nature, does not deal in beliefs, as belief requires confidence in the truth of something not immediately suseptible to rigorous proof. The scientific method is all about subjecting things to rigorous proof.

That's not to say that belief doesn't enter the equation. The method starts with someone coming up with a hypothesis they believe may be correct, and then testing it to see if it is. But if the testing proves the hypothesis correct, it is no longer belief.


"Science" then, is not a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, it is a set of proofs concerning the cause, nature of purpose of the universe. Which, fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on where you stand) disqualifies it from being a Religion.