Dembski: God's best gift to intelligent design

I started viewing the Dawkins' documentary and found it to be quite interesting. While I do not agree with all Dawkins has to say and while some of his statements are a bit too generic for my taste, I find his comments to be quite enlightening.
In addition, Dawkins has done more for science than much of any other ID activist as far as I can tell.

Which means that while ID cannot compete in the realm of science, it can at least attempt the obvious namely to make its religious foundations more explicit and try to taint science with religious faith or atheism.

PvM,

You apparently don't know much about Amazon.com rankings. The sale of one book can catapult its ranking from 800,00 to 2,700 in the span of a few minutes as the rankings are based on hourly sales and are updated as such. You would have to be persistant enough to watch those rankings over a long period of time to be able to use them as a gauge of overall popularity.

well, we did predict Carol would pop in soon,

just in a different thread!

LOL.

you just couldn't resist, could you Carol?

As an added service for customers, authors, publishers, artists, labels, and studios, we show how items in our catalog are selling. The lower the number, the higher the sales for that particular item. The calculation is based on Amazon.com sales and is updated each hour to reflect recent and historical sales of every item sold on Amazon.com. We hope you find the Amazon.com Sales Rank interesting!

Amazon's sales rank is calculated as a rolling figure. It's based on sales over a recent period. I can't remember if the period is 60 or 90 days, though. It is, however, weighted by overall total sales (they put this back in after having dropped it for a couple of years), keeping long-term big sellers afloat even after their sharp sales peaks have leveled out. Not all books are recalculated with the same frequency. The top 1,000 are recalculated hourly. The next block (up to 100,000, I think) are recalculated weekly, while the rest get checked monthly. However, a sudden burst in sales is enough to force an immediate recalculation on a 100,000+ book. This is probably based on a percentage of overall sales, but that's just a guess.

c'mon! it's obvious why she posted that. she wants to come up with a theory to explain the poor showing of Landa's book, and to assure the rest of us (indirectly of course) that it really is doing quite well, despite anything you could determine from Amazon stats.

Dembski's obsession with Dawkin's is almost pathalogical. He needs Dawkin's to proove his assertion that evolution is atheistic. Sadly for Dembski (and his followers), they just can't seem to figure out that Dawkin's metaphysical views (or lack thereof) are his own, not officially representative of scientific thought in general (as far as atheism goes), and in that light, largely irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary biology as a science. Arguing that Dawkin's prooves that evolution is atheistic is akin to arguing that all vegetarians are fascist genocidal lunatics because Hitler was a vegetarian. Really, I think we need to give Dembski the "Basil Fawlty" award for logic. Perhaps an endowed chair in intellectual burlesque?

ahhh, another Towers fan.

brings back memories.

PvM,

The Amazon.com system currently in effect, in simple English, places books sold in the most recent hour in the highest tier (lowest numbered rankings), those that sold in the most recent two hours in the next tier, and so on. Then, within those in a particular tier, such as those that sold in the last hour, the books are additionally ranked by sales in the last two hours, in the last three hours, and so on. THAT is the meaning of "historical" as practiced by Amazon. The net effect is that the sale of one book can take a book from a million to a thousand. Unless you watched Dembski's and Dawkin's books over time, you just do not know which has sold more books.

#829,893 in Books (See Top Sellers in Books) Yesterday: #821,225 in Books

On closer scrutiny, the book seems to be marginally ahead of 'currently unavailable ones'

:-)

I'm an atheist, and unfortunately I'm not a big fan of Dawkins' atheist evangelism. I saw his series and while it raised some great points I was underwhelmed with the whole.

Here's why.

The problem as I see it is not religion. It is the *cognitive style* of *fundamentalist* religion. The problem is dogmatism, authority-worship, and excessive emotional attachment to ideology.

Actually, religion has a pretty good term for this cognitive style that I think can be safely appropriated: idolatry. More specifically, the cognitive style I'm referring to is the idolatry of dogma, doctrine, authority, and/or text. (pick any combination of those)

Militant Communists (mostly) did not believe in God, and yet they did many if not all of the same things that fundamentalists do: invading neighbors, killing infidels, waging a dishonest propaganda war, etc. They acted like fundamentalists because they *were* fundamentalists. They *thought like* fundamentalists!

The problem isn't belief in God. The problem is a way of thinking. The cognitive style and psychology of fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se. A basically rational and decent person can be a theist, but a basically rational person cannot be an "ideolater."

Dawkins on the other hand claims that violence, irrational behavior, etc. is a result of theism and that the removal of theism would cure this pathology. I cannot disagree more. History has shown that when you take religion away from those who have a basically fundamentalist style of thinking they merely latch onto some other form of secular fundamentalism and resume the crusade.

If you could reach into Dembski's cranium and remove his belief in God, I'm sure he would latch onto and start propagandizing for some other kind of all-encompassing ideological crusade. He would do that because that's how he thinks. He views ideas like sports teams rather than tools, and will always apply his intellect merely to booster his side rather than to search for truth. He might become a Marxist, or a Green ideologue, or even a militant atheist!

There are a number of reasons I'm an atheist, first and foremost being that I see no evidence for an anthropic deity. However I don't think that we must embark on some crusade to eradicate all belief in a God.

But, I do think that we *should* embark on a crusade to eradicate ideology-idolatry and fundamentalism. This style of thinking should be considered a mental illness and treated as such.

P.S. Don't give me that "but you're thinking just like this by arguing this!" baloney folks. That's like saying that laws against rape are themselves a form of rape because they force people to submit to the absence of rape.

I'm also not apologizing for Dembski by any means. He's basically a propagandist for fundamentalism as well as for an authoritarian political ideology.

The Amazon.com system currently in effect, in simple English, places books sold in the most recent hour in the highest tier (lowest numbered rankings), those that sold in the most recent two hours in the next tier, and so on. Then, within those in a particular tier, such as those that sold in the last hour, the books are additionally ranked by sales in the last two hours, in the last three hours, and so on. THAT is the meaning of "historical" as practiced by Amazon. The net effect is that the sale of one book can take a book from a million to a thousand. Unless you watched Dembski's and Dawkin's books over time, you just do not know which has sold more books.

On closer scrutiny, the book seems to be marginally ahead of 'currently unavailable ones'

Carol Clouser, thanks for the giggle of the weekend. Your haste to disagree with anything and everything on here exposes you yet again. With you pushing book(s) all the time, I would have thought you'd be familiar with how these things work.

mplavcan suggested Dembski be given a chair
Perhaps an endowed chair in intellectual burlesque?

Yes.... ever since the Ministry of Silly Walks was closed down the chances of developing an Anglo-American silly walk went out the door.

And on theology?

He's worse at that than he is at pseudoscience.

In fact Dawkins IS A BETTER THEOLOGIAN than Dembski by light years.

Expect Dembski to retreat to trying to pick holes in theology from Lenny's Pizza delivery boy.

The problem isn't belief in God. The problem is a way of thinking. The cognitive style and psychology of fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se. A basically rational and decent person can be a theist, but a basically rational person cannot be an "ideolater." Dawkins on the other hand claims that violence, irrational behavior, etc. is a result of theism and that the removal of theism would cure this pathology. I cannot disagree more. History has shown that when you take religion away from those who have a basically fundamentalist style of thinking they merely latch onto some other form of secular fundamentalism and resume the crusade.

The problem isn't belief in God. The problem is a way of thinking. The cognitive style and psychology of fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se.

But, I do think that we *should* embark on a crusade to eradicate ideology-idolatry and fundamentalism. This style of thinking should be considered a mental illness and treated as such.

If Dembski wants to make the argument that theism and evolution are incompatible, he's going to have to do it philosophically. Because doing so based on the religious beliefs of biologists is beyond stupid. The fact is that biologists can be pooled from every religion on earth, and from nonreligious people. The fact is that IDists are all fundamentalists except save from maybe a Jew or two they have hidden away and perhaps a couple of muslims. Philosophically he at least has a chance to make the argument.

Hmm - facilitating the theft of copyrighted material (and illegal possession of the same). Has anyone contacted the FBI yet...?

Seriously though, I wonder what his supposedly morally upright paymasters at the Seminary think of this behaviour?

Look, basically if you don't believe in god then there's nothing to stop you stealing and distributing other people's intellectual property... heathens.

*cough*

It's not theft, it's "Street theatre".

some links:

http://www.reportpiracy.co.uk/reportit.htm

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/useful_links/index.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ipr/

Woody Allen's latest film, Match Point, illustrates the depths to which Darwinian nihilism is dragging popular culture.

Sigh, yes... I have no idea what's up with Dembski...

I try to make it a point NOT to read Uncommon Descent, but I distinctly remember a post up there some while back in which Dembski lamented that more theologists hadn't taken up ID.
It really isn't a mystery. Just as Paley's argument, crystalizing the idea firmly and classically, and the resulting debate over it eventually quelched the intellectual basis for Design Argument in biology during and era of strengthening empiricism and scientific progress, so too did it largely knock the feet out from under Argument from Design in philosophical circles. If anything, this resurgence of Design Argument in the clothing of ID will probably just repeat that result on a lesser scale. I think we can optimistically say it's already having that effect on anti-evolution Creationism in general, especially with the publicity surrounding the Dover decision.
As to the Dawkins/Dembski relationship, meh. One of the reasons why I like Dr. Pennock's Tower of Babel is because he's very hands-off when it comes to making personal theological assertions, and seems more interested in simply giving people the bare facts about the philosophy of science and evolution. In fact I've seen Creationists get frustrated precisely because he never made his personal religious beliefs known through his books, which is always a good thing in my book.

If you want to see Dembski do a really silly walk, see him in Horizon - War on Science. It came with my copy of The Root of all Evil and it talks about intelligent design. In it, demsbki is walking very intently down a railroad track toward the camera. A few cars pass in front of him. I could help but chuckle because it made him seem so serious. Then I imagined big red shoes...

Well, his pants were too short already...

As an added service for customers, authors, publishers, artists, labels, and studios, we show how items in our catalog are selling. The lower the number, the higher the sales for that particular item. The calculation is based on Amazon.com sales and is updated each hour to reflect recent and historical sales of every item sold on Amazon.com. We hope you find the Amazon.com Sales Rank interesting!

— PvM

Unless you watched Dembski's and Dawkin's books over time, you just do not know which has sold more books.

So why this obsession with Dawkins?

— PvM

If ID was truly interested in the quality of education and teaching the controversy, it would have since long taken a stand on such concepts as 'the age of the earth'. But that would only serve to damage creationism's 'big tent'. So much for the idea that this is all about the quality of science education.

— PvM

Is Dembski suggesting PIRATING "The Root Of All Evil?"

How incredibly christian of him.

Stealing is Ok, as long as you're Stealing For Jesus

One may wonder about Dembski's fascination with Dawkins. Is it because Dawkins beats Dembski in a Google fight 9 million to 700,000?

I'm an atheist, and unfortunately I'm not a big fan of Dawkins' atheist evangelism.

— Adam Ierymenko

The problem isn't belief in God. The problem is a way of thinking. The cognitive style and psychology of fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se. A basically rational and decent person can be a theist, but a basically rational person cannot be an "ideolater."

The problem isn't belief in God. The problem is a way of thinking. The cognitive style and psychology of fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se.

As a christian I have to confess that I have a problem at times with Richard Dawkins. As I have said many times before this debate is not about whether or not God does or doesn't exist. That is a philosopical arguement. This is about science, common sence, and reason. Sometimes however, I feel that because of his cavalier attitude Dawkins is guilty of handing the fundies ammunition. I make no appologies though, in posting this link again having seen this video:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

My minister on silence:"Wait untill you see this bit"

No wonder Dawkins is angry with them. I'm still surprised he hasn't taken these people to court. The number of times I hear this quoted either by YEC's, or people phoning into discussion programmes on creation shows that even after all this time it's still having the desired effect !

I think Ken Miller's approach is much better. Why alienate those in the church that accept evolutionary science ?

And by the way, Atheism has been tried as a state religion in at least one country in Europe - Albania. I actually visited the place a few years ago. What a mess!

Dembski is god's best gift the evolution. The man's so dumb he falls for email hoaxes.

to evolution

And by the way, Atheism has been tried as a state religion in at least one country in Europe - Albania. I actually visited the place a few years ago. What a mess!

I'm not sure it is necessarily the case that Dembski is giving up the scientific argument and trying to win on theology. It is obvious that the birth of the ID movement was after the Edwards, when it became clear Creation "Science" would no longer be possible to teach without being quickly overturned by lower federal courts. Now the IDers are actively trying to distance themselves from Creation "Science", accusing it of being religious but trying to say that ID is not connected.

However, after the rout at Dover this was shown to be nothing but overt rhetoric, the connection between ID and Creation "Science" was clearly demonstrated. Because of some testimony in the Dover trial it seems that they are abandoning ID and moving on to "Sudden Emergences Theory" (although they will probably have to rename it after the publicity at Dover). It may be possible that the Discovery Institute has figured that ID has no hope of succeeding in the inevitable supreme-court trial, and they are sabatoging it in hopes that they will be able to better distance "Sudden Emergence Theory" from ID when the time comes. I may be giving them more credit than they are due, but PR does seem to be their one and only strong point so I would not put it past them.

As a Christian I do not agree with the strong version of Dawkins' message namely that faith and religion are invariably leading to extremist behaviors. Nevertheless, he has a valid point that religion requires one to give up on independent and critical thought to some varying degree. I am quite familiar with YECism, where there exists a strong pressure to accept their reading of the Bible as the only correct version and dissent is not allowed. Understandably, YECism extends its control to outside of religion into science where it similarly requires reality to conform to their faith.

I have found that many ID activists are actually quite unfamiliar with the basic "foundations" of ID and although much of this may be caused by the use of conflating terms such as complexity, information and design, it seems to may that an uncritical acceptance of ID based on religious faith leads one to an even more uncritical understanding of its 'scientific claims'.

No religion is not bad under all circumstances but it does provide for an environment which may discourage critical and independent thinking. And Dawkins makes an excellent case of that. Understandably, ID activists seem to be 'up in arms' against Dawkins, partially because of Dawkins' strong claims and partially because the truth hits too closely for comfort.

I do wonder about Dembski's obsession with Dawkins. One must remember that Dembski's father was a biology teacher who taught evolutionary biology at the university level; I wonder about the potential of a similar rebellion against a father figure here. (I should know; I rebelled against my own father's 6-day creationism and sought out role models in Sagan and Gould.) It seems to me that in some convoluted way, Dembski wants attention and acknowledgement from Dawkins.

One also cannot help noticing that Dawkins is a dashing figure; if I were a man I'd be jealous of him, too. (For the record, my sig other resembles Dembski rather than Dawkins, so that's not intended as a personal slight.) This all has little to do with science and little to do with religion, since fights about religion are, in my opinion, just a smokescreen for personal, earthly concerns. (Earthly concerns! As if there were any other kind.)

Kirstine wrote:
"One also cannot help noticing that Dawkins is a dashing figure; if I were a man I'd be jealous of him, too."

He's married to this very attractive lady:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/gallery/ward/ward11.shtml

I suppose a lot of men would possibly be jealous !

Peter says:

"And by the way, Atheism has been tried as a state religion in at least one country in Europe - Albania."

That sounded as such a surprising claim - atheism isn't a proper religion after all - so I tried to google Albanian history.

I can't find any support to the claim.

Instead, on http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898702208/102-4026621-7503344?v=glance&n=283155 there is a reviewer that claims:

"When communist leader Enver Hoxha finally consolidated his rule over Albania, a mountainous country on the Adriatic, one of the first measures he implemented was a ban on religion. Taking Marx's adage that "Religion is an opiate of the masses," Hoxha and his fellow travelers attempted to make themselves central to its citizen's lives. The government deemed this action necessary because the communists saw Albania's three faiths--Islam, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity--as an obstacle to national unification."

Now, that I can understand. As many communist countries they ban or work against religions.

Communism isn't atheism.

In fact, a good case can be made that for all practical purposes communism behaved like a religion. It even had a pseudoscience, "socialist science", that was proposed to replace science to support the ideology. Much like "creationist science" replacing biology, geology and cosmology supports christian fundamentalist ideology.

The source of the mistaken claim seems to be described by the same reviewer:

"In an effort to make communism the new state "religion," harsh measures of suppression and punishment directed against the representatives of these faiths took place. In "Banishing God in Albania," Jesuit priest Giacomo Gardin outlines his personal encounter with the horrific measures taken by the communist government to turn Albania into the world's only "atheistic state." I considered this book a necessary read because surveys of Albanian history often mention that the communists banned religion without delving into specifics."

"I actually visited the place a few years ago. What a mess!"

Yes, all communist states were.

As a Christian I do not agree with the strong version of Dawkins' message namely that faith and religion are invariably leading to extremist behaviors.

I did a quick google search on this as well. Here are just two articles that I found on the claim:

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr36iii.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1004984.stm

From the first essay:

"In 1967 all religious bodies were banned, Christian and Muslim church property was confiscated, and Albania was formally declared the world's first atheist state."

and from the BBC:
"1967 - Violent clampdown on religious activity. Albania declared the world's first atheist state."

I had heard the claim being made in a number of church services I've attended.

OK, so some people do not see atheism as a religion, but in my opinion it is just as much a faith position as fundamentalist Christianity. I know many people criticize the fundies etc. for being dogmatic, but one thing the book of Genesis did give us was our moral guidelines such as "Thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" etc. Surely without these the world itself would be in chaos ?

I realize it probably wasn't intentional, but I really, really don't think you want to be using Stormfront as a source under any circumstances.

Because of some testimony in the Dover trial it seems that they are abandoning ID and moving on to "Sudden Emergences Theory" (although they will probably have to rename it after the publicity at Dover)

— Todd

As a Christian I do not agree with the strong version of Dawkins' message namely that faith and religion are invariably leading to extremist behaviors. indeed. Don't those arguments remind you of the arguments made to ban the sale of alcohol in the US during the depression?

I know many people criticize the fundies etc. for being dogmatic, but one thing the book of Genesis did give us was our moral guidelines such as "Thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" etc. Surely without these the world itself would be in chaos ?

— Peter Henderson

So only those civilizations that grew with the benifits of knowing Genisis (the book, not the band) had prohibitions against murder?
Yes, I remember learning how poorly it served the natives of the New World to live without the Bible.

the book of Genesis did give us was our moral guidelines such as "Thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" etc.

I know many people criticize the fundies etc. for being dogmatic, but one thing the book of Genesis did give us was our moral guidelines such as "Thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" etc. Surely without these the world itself would be in chaos ?

— Peter Henderson

Comment #101659 Posted by Carol Clouser on May 21, 2006 08:31 PM (e) PvM, You apparently don't know much about Amazon.com rankings. The sale of one book can catapult its ranking from 800,00 to 2,700 in the span of a few minutes as the rankings are based on hourly sales and are updated as such. You would have to be persistant enough to watch those rankings over a long period of time to be able to use them as a gauge of overall popularity.

1. Until Amazon sells at least one copy, that book has no rank. Once Amazon sells a copy, the book is ranked. Currently, one sale will rank the book in the 1,700,000 - 1,800,000 range. 2. Amazon's rankings reflect both amount of copies sold, and recency of sales. A book with some recent sales may outrank another book that sold more copies, long ago.

I know many people criticize the fundies etc. for being dogmatic, but one thing the book of Genesis did give us was our moral guidelines such as "Thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" etc. Surely without these the world itself would be in chaos ?

Peter wrote:

"He's married to this very attractive lady"

A gorgeous lady, Ms. Ward! (Are they not the perfect couple?) Who, by the way, once traveled in the TARDIS time machine with Dr. Who. Which reminds me: William Dembski once tossed out that the Intelligent Designer could be a "time-traveling biologist." Dembski also told Dawkins that he [Dembski] "thanked God for him" [Dawkins] because Dawkins was allegedly hurting the evolutionist cause with his atheism.

Hmmm. A biologist, perhaps with an endowed seat at Oxford, who has access to a time machine through his wife, possibly being the Intelligent Designer? That Dembksi himself thanks the Designer for? Does Dembksi realize what a gaffe he's made? He just prayed to Richard Dawkins! ;-)

Peter Henderson wrote: I know many people criticize the fundies etc. for being dogmatic, but one thing the book of Genesis did give us was our moral guidelines such as "Thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" etc. Surely without these the world itself would be in chaos ?

I can't tell if you're being intentionally ironic with that remark. Prohibition was driven by religious groups, notably the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

I was not aware that Dr. Dawkins advocated the banning of religion. Are you sure about that? AFAIK, he advocates the abandonment of religion, which is a totally different kettle of fish.

"I know many people criticize the fundies etc. for being dogmatic, but one thing the book of Genesis did give us was our moral guidelines such as "Thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" etc. Surely without these the world itself would be in chaos ?"

I knew this would provoke a reaction !

Anton wrote:
"Indeed. That's why regions where the book of Genesis is given little attention, such as Japan and India, are plagued by murder, theft and chaos. Conversely, regions where the book is venerated, such as Africa and the Middle East, are stable near-utopias."

I detect more than a touch of sarcasm in your statement Anton. I'd hardly say that the three countries you mentioned are examples of politically stable regimes. When India gained Independence there was widespread sectarian violence between Hindus and Muslims. Many also died when Pakistan split from India in the mid seventies. Japan's torture of ailed prisoners during the second world war is now legendary, and China's
record on human rights from the start of the cultural revolution, through to the present day is surely not something we in the developed world would envy !

Aureola wrote:
"I was not aware that Dr. Dawkins advocated the banning of religion. Are you sure about that? AFAIK, he advocates the abandonment of religion, which is a totally different kettle of fish."

I agree Aurola, but Carl Marx probably never intended Communism to turn out the way it did. I'm sure some totalitarian dictator will pick up on Dr Dawkins ideas and distort them in the same way.

Carl Marx probably never intended Communism to turn out the way it did. I'm sure some totalitarian dictator will pick up on Dr Dawkins ideas and distort them in the same way.

Comment #101919 Posted by Peter Henderson on May 23, 2006 04:10 PM (e) "I know many people criticize the fundies etc. for being dogmatic, but one thing the book of Genesis did give us was our moral guidelines such as "Thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" etc. Surely without these the world itself would be in chaos ?" I knew this would provoke a reaction !

I think you're treading on thin ice here. There has been widespread overt sectarian violence within Christian civilizations as well, both in Northern Ireland, and IIRC at various times (well, maybe not widespread) in the US, and between Christians and other religions. The Crusades of course spring to mind. My understanding is that that the violence in India between Muslims and Hindus was an outgrowth of the departure of the British (although I'd like some scholars of that time and place to comment if that isn't true). And Japan, although in the throes of a facist/religious leadership during WWII, is much less violent overall than the US today, with substantially similar religion but a different government.

I think we could all come up with violent Christian communities or civilizations and peaceful (relatively) non-Christian ones (I think of Australian Aborigials and Native Americans as relatively "moral" groups). I do agree with you that Anton had "a touch of sarcasm" :-) I think that the point is that the Judaeau-Christian tradition has no monopoly on "moral" behaviour, and (as other posters have shown) that pretty much all civilizations (including predating the OT) have had bans on murder, theft, adultery, etc. I bet even Albania had those laws!

Jeeze, I type a simple message and 2 more relevant posts come up before mine! I was, of course, responding to Peter.

And to continue, I think most people would agree that most of these laws are necessary for any civilization to flourish, regardless of religion or the lack thereof.

(PS spell check worked for me)

I was not aware that Dr. Dawkins advocated the banning of religion. Are you sure about that? AFAIK, he advocates the abandonment of religion, which is a totally different kettle of fish.

Bill wrote:
"And, BTW, it's "Karl" not "Carl.""

I did check this before posting. Seemingly you can use either spelling:

http://www.geocities.com/lenin17n/database/marx/biography.html

Re:"besides, even if Christian doctorine can be (and has been) distorted to justify man's inhumanity to man in all sorts of ways, we should not hold the ideas themselves or their authors responsible"

Entirely agree with you Bill. That's what I meant when I mentioned Marx !

I agree Aurola, but Carl Marx probably never intended Communism to turn out the way it did. I'm sure some totalitarian dictator will pick up on Dr Dawkins ideas and distort them in the same way.

Know of anywhere in the US where it's illegal to worship idols or dishonor your parents?

I knew this would provoke a reaction !

"Think about it."

I have thought about it. The consequences of Marx's ideology were: millions slaughtered and tortured, millions carted of to labour camps in Siberia where many probably died, millions who probably just disappeared etc. etc. etc. Half the world had to endure this in totalitarian dictatorships for the best part of the last century. Lets not forget there are still countries like this even today ie North Korea for example.

Marx probably never intended any of this. I'm sure he was probably trying to make the world a better place for everyone.

Marx probably never intended any of this. I'm sure he was probably trying to make the world a better place for everyone.

Marx probably never intended any of this. I'm sure he was probably trying to make the world a better place for everyone.

I have thought about it. The consequences of Marx's ideology were:

— Peter Henderson

I'm sure some totalitarian dictator will pick up on Dr Dawkins ideas and distort them in the same way.

You could go back in time to 1900 and substitute Marxism for practically anything else, from Nietzche to Narodnikism to radical libertarianism

don't forget Darwin!

— Sir_Toejam

Anton wrote: "Indeed. That's why regions where the book of Genesis is given little attention, such as Japan and India, are plagued by murder, theft and chaos. Conversely, regions where the book is venerated, such as Africa and the Middle East, are stable near-utopias." I detect more than a touch of sarcasm in your statement Anton. I'd hardly say that the three countries you mentioned are examples of politically stable regimes. When India gained Independence there was widespread sectarian violence between Hindus and Muslims. Many also died when Pakistan split from India in the mid seventies.

— Peter Henderson

Japan's torture of ailed prisoners during the second world war is now legendary, and China's record on human rights from the start of the cultural revolution, through to the present day is surely not something we in the developed world would envy !

Marx probably never intended any of this.

Peter,
"I did a quick google search on this as well."

Yes. When googling the claim itself it seems well supported, by albanian sites for example. You were right.

"OK, so some people do not see atheism as a religion,"

What I was mainly claiming is that communism isn't atheism. You can see a lot of arguments why in my former comment, or in others comment here.

So what if they called themselves the first Atheistic state? Technically, they were right. But factually, they were a communistic state. They didn't want religion to compete with their own ideas.

In no way was that an atheistic state. If you look at atheistic organisations home sites they usually want a secular government and free religion, like most moderate religious people. Like US is.

Atheism wasn't responsible for the ills of the communistic states, it was a political system which main problem was that it used faith instead of evidence based politics. In fact I think atheism was more wronged than religion. They demanded belief in Marxism and the holiness of guys like Stalin which was blamed on atheism. It was both victim and called victimizer.

But Lenin and Stalin did.

Re "Darwin is responsible for the existence of Marxism, Nietzcheism, Narodnikism, radical libertarianism, and Russia."

Wow. How'd that guy find time to do all that stuff and all the biology research about which he wrote? Wow.

Henry

*wamba, I'll just stick with Genesis until Mr. Henderson suggests switching books.

Who, by the way, once traveled in the TARDIS time machine with Dr. Who.

Peter, regarding comment #101947, I think Bill's statement implies that he does not agree with you on that point. Though, of course, the nefarious actions of church leaders bear no more resemblance to the biblical teachings of Jesus than the murderous actions of totalitarian dictators do to the theories of Marx. Ideology was just their tool for gaining power and exerting control.

I think Bill's statement implies that he does not agree with you on that point.

Dawkins is personally an atheist, but what he is arguing in his books is that God is not necessary to explain creation.

That is to say he is denying that the universe presents objective proof of God's existence.

This seems an intelligent position to take even for a believer. To have your whole spiritual infrastructure balancing precariously on the result of a minuscule measurement in quantum theory does not seem very prudent.

And, as I have heard a leading Islamist say on Kuwaiti television, to claim that scientists need God because they can't explain the first tenth of a second after the Big Bang, somehow isn't going to lead to my immediate conversion. A tenth-of-a-second God, however venerable he may be, somehow doesn't inspire enough awe and wonder.

Also lost is the irony that the Christianity that exists today, like the communism that existed in the Soviet Union, is the distortion and not the author's original intent.

...possibly because we actually have evidence of Karl Marx's existence?

Wamba said:
"Heh. Hopefully he'll actually read those books before he imposes them on others."

Nothing of the sort Wamba. I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone. Although I am a christian I AM DEFINITELY NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST !

Bill said
"Peter seems to be attempting to denigrate Dawkins or his ideas by bringing up the point about someone in the future misusing Dawkins ideas, then agrees that in general ideas and their authors are not to blame for that sort of misuse."

Again nothing of the sort Bill. All I was trying to point out was that fundamentalist ideas of any sort lead to the examples I quoted above whether it is Socialism, Christianity, Islam, or even Atheism. With regard to Atheism the only country I could think of was Albania and preachers often refer to this. I'm not blaming Richard Dawkins for the situation in that country, but Marx's views on religion was certainly one of the factors that led to it.

The fundies/YEC's often mention that evolution leads to people becoming Atheists. There was an article on the AIG website some time ago, that referred to the author of the book "Farewell to God" (can't remember his name !) but apparently he was once a well known evangelical preacher. AIG implied that it was his acceptance of "millions of years" and belief in evolution that led to his present position. I actually would argue the other way around - that belief in Young Earth Creationism, has led to many Christians either becoming agnostics or atheists. The problem that I have with Richard Dawkins is that he can sometimes alienate those Christians who do accept evolutionary science (ie the theistic evolutionists). In an article in the Daily Telegraph a while back Dawkins himself even admitted that. "It would have been better if we (the atheists) had kept our big mouths shut" he said.

OK, so I mentioned Genesis and morality, but maybe the Atheists here could answer this query. What benchmark do you use for moral/ethical issues ? Maybe the rules laid down in the ten commandments do predate Genesis, but I would imagine that at that time atheists would have been very thin on the ground, if not non-existent. Natural events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, or floods would have been put down to "the Gods being angry" etc, whether they were Christian or not. Even those "evolutionary" Greeks had their Gods ! I've often wondered how Atheists know why it is wrong to lie or kill etc.

Peter, considering that:

a) atheists are not going on murderous rampages of rape and pillage (at least, not at any noticeably higher frequency than theists); and

b) they don't refrain from such acts out of Fear of Godâ„¢;

Don't you think it would be time to retire the old "how can you guys behave well if you don't believe in a Big Invisible Cop in the Sky Constantly Looking at You" canard?

Let me give you one hint to one possible reason (many more, of course, exist, as "atheism" is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods of any kind, and does not necessarily imply anything else):

Self-preservation, in a gregarious animal species, in enhanced by co-operative behaviour, and jeopardized by antisocial behaviour.

Darn non-self-activating spellchecker!

*is enhanced...

OK, so I mentioned Genesis and morality, but maybe the Atheists here could answer this query. What benchmark do you use for moral/ethical issues ? Maybe the rules laid down in the ten commandments do predate Genesis, but I would imagine that at that time atheists would have been very thin on the ground, if not non-existent. Natural events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, or floods would have been put down to "the Gods being angry" etc, whether they were Christian or not. Even those "evolutionary" Greeks had their Gods ! I've often wondered how Atheists know why it is wrong to lie or kill etc.

Re "You do have some Fundy characteristics. For example, although you have been clearly proven wrong on numerous points, you simply keep digging yourself deeper rather than admit you were wrong."

It's living all my life in Northern Ireland Wamba. Some of it must have rubbed off ! Seriously though, I wouldn't describe myself as a fundie, and I would probably be quite open minded about most things. I certainly feel that I have become more liberal as time has progressed. Spending a lot of time in hospital over recent years, quite ill at times, and witnessing some people who were dying, has changed my mind on a lot of issues. My upbringing, although in a christian home, was not overly strict either ( there was no Sunday observance for example !)

Re:
"a) atheists are not going on murderous rampages of rape and pillage (at least, not at any noticeably higher frequency than theists); and"

I do realise this and I'm sure that most atheists are morally upright people, probably more so than a lot of the so called Christians, (I find much of the Christian TV rubbish from the US that we can view in the UK now, offensive and corrupt).

I do accept evolutionary science. I think most Christians do, and this is why I feel that the debate shouldn't become an issue about whether or not God does or doesn't exist. As I said in my original post, this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. It's really, really important that scientists realise this. Groups such as AIG like to tell Christians that "millions of years" and evolution are atheistic concepts and they frequently cite Richard Dawkins as an example of this. Hence, those Christians who accept conventional science are really compromisers, according to them (AIG etc). This isn't true of course, but it's vitally important that Christians like myself are not placed in an awkward position regarding the existence of God.

I hadn't realised Atheism was that old Wamba so thanks for clearing that up for me. I had thought it came to the fore in the 18th century, when geologists like Hutton and Lyell proposed that the Earth was shaped by natural processes over long periods of time and not by devine intervention. It must be all that YEC propaganda !

"I had thought it came to the fore in the 18th century"

Woops. I should have said the 19th century !

The problem that I have with Richard Dawkins is that he can sometimes alienate those Christians who do accept evolutionary science (ie the theistic evolutionists).

— Peter

I actually would argue the other way around - that belief in Young Earth Creationism, has led to many Christians either becoming agnostics or atheists.

— Peter

I've often wondered how Atheists know why it is wrong to lie or kill etc.

— Peter

(sigh) Is this gonna turn into yet another pointless holy war?

"Anarcho-syndicalism is a way of preserving freedom. If only people would listen..."
Dennis, MP&THG

As I said in my original post, this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

"Love is all you need."

--Lennon and McCartney

Nothing of the sort Wamba. I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone. Although I am a christian I AM DEFINITELY NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST !

— Peter Henderson

All I was trying to point out was that fundamentalist ideas of any sort lead to the examples I quoted above whether it is Socialism, Christianity, Islam, or even Atheism. With regard to Atheism the only country I could think of was Albania and preachers often refer to this.

OK, so I mentioned Genesis and morality, but maybe the Atheists here could answer this query. What benchmark do you use for moral/ethical issues ?

Maybe the rules laid down in the ten commandments do predate Genesis, but I would imagine that at that time atheists would have been very thin on the ground, if not non-existent. Natural events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, or floods would have been put down to "the Gods being angry" etc, whether they were Christian or not. Even those "evolutionary" Greeks had their Gods !

OK, so I mentioned Genesis and morality, but maybe the Atheists here could answer this query. What benchmark do you use for moral/ethical issues ?

A good answer is: none of your freaking business.

If you have a problem with my behavior, though, explain to me what your problem is and we can talk rationally about it.

Or try to.

Or I can talk rationally and you can point to some invisible "spirit" who rewards "good" people with golden harps and puffy clouds and allows "bad" people to suffer eternally.

Re"A good answer is: none of your freaking business."
and

"If you have a problem with my behavior, though, explain to me what your problem is and we can talk rationally about it."

THERE IS NO NEED TO GET NASTY REGISTERED USER! It was a genuine query as most of my friends are either Christians or agnostics. I don't have any contact with atheists and I always wondered what the rules where and what they where based on.I was trying to have a rational discussion on the subject since Richard Dawkins is frequently referred to as an Evangelical atheist by many fundie groups.

However, if your attitude is typical of atheist's attitudes towards Christians then maybe I'm better not to bother since there's no point. No wonder fundies are the way they are !

Re Lenny: there are many, many Christians, even in this country (NI) who are not fundies, and who hold a liberal view on the creation/evolution controversy (if you could call it that). For want of repeating myself, these are the very people that have to be kept on board. As I have said, the existence of whether or not God exists is not the issue here.

..."atheism" is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods of any kind, and does not necessarily imply anything else.

Sorry if I was Aureola. It's just that registered user's reply threw me. Probably better to ignore him !

The closest I think, that I've come to knowing that someone was an atheist was one of my ex-bosses (his name was Frank). Frank was genuinely a really nice person, although he professed no faith in God despite probably being preached at by some of the fundies over the years. He was one of the better people that I've worked with . Sadly he passed away a few months ago but the thing that surprised me was that his funeral was conducted by a minister. I had always thought he was an atheist. Perhaps he was really an agnostic or maybe that was his wife's idea ! I suppose there are both good and bad people no matter where you go.

However, I have listened to many testimonies from people whose lives were falling apart, and who, in many cases were morally corrupt, until they were "saved". I'm not sure if they became nicer people as a result of this experience, but they certainly claim their lives would have gone "down the tubes" had it not happened. In some cases that I've heard, the outcome would have been certain death in the end. (drug abuse for example !)

As I say , it was a genuine query and not an attempt to "preach" at anyone. Christian's lives revolve around biblical principles (like forgiveness for instance, especially when we feel like taking revenge) so I had wondered how people who were atheists had come to their moral conclusions.

Now I know !

Peter:

I, too, have known people who were "saved" that way. Alas, I've also known people who were destroyed by fundamentalist religion; the obvious conclusion, to me, seems to be that religion neither saves nor destroys per se, but rather we do.

You know, when I was a kid, my Catholic parents taught me that behaving well while observed was a nice thing, but not really indicative of my moral fibre; that could only be tested when nobody was watching me.

Well, I suppose now I know. I don't think there is anyone "watching me from above", and yet I still behave in such a way as to minimize suffering in my fellow naked apes.

Are good Christians good only because they are afraid of Big Daddy and his Holy Belt Buckle? Somehow, I don't think so. Actually, those who are most full of Fear of Godâ„¢ seem to be some of the loudest, most obnoxious botherers on the face of Earth.

It was a genuine query as most of my friends are either Christians or agnostics. I don't have any contact with atheists and I always wondered what the rules where and what they where based on.

— Peter Henderson

It was a genuine query as most of my friends are either Christians or agnostics. I don't have any contact with atheists and I always wondered what the rules where and what they where based on.

Regarding the relative abrasiveness of Dawkins, here's my take on it:

Dawkins is to "all atheists" as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are to "all Christians".

Dawkins is to "all atheists" as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are to "all Christians".

I don't think I'd consider that fair. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Prof. Dawkins has ever called for his enemies to be killed.

Hmmm. Is "vocal" a synonym of "abrasive" nowadays?

I don't think we atheists should hide in the closet, in fear of "offending" thin-skinned theists. We need more, not fewer, people like Dawkins or PZ.

I'm afraid that what offends certain people is the very existence of atheists; at the very least, we should shut up and disappear. Well, no, sorry, not everybody is a theist, and some of us think we have very good reasons for not believing in gods.

Why should we be intimidated into not explaining those reasons? It's not like anyone is forcing theists to renounce their beliefs.

Re "Yes you do. They're just in the closet because they don't want to lose friends, their job, etc."

First of all Steve, an employee can't loose their job because they are an atheist, at least not in this country (NI) as there is now very stringent fair employment legislation in place. It is now against the law to discriminate against a person because of their religion or lack thereof, colour of skin, race, or sexual orientation etc. !

I've worked in Power Stations for most of my life and even those folk that I knew who did not make any profession of faith often talked about so and so going to "the great power station in the sky" when someone had died. This implied that the person making this statement was agnostic rather than atheist since it seems to be assuming an after life. This is the way most people talk here, even those who don't attend church, and apart from the colleague I mentioned above I don't think anyone I've met has admitted that they were an atheist. I would say that most people who are not Christians in NI are probably agnostics.

Northern Ireland is a very religious country of course (as is the ROI) so perhaps atheists are less common here than in other parts of the UK

Peter. I'm an atheist. In the American South. I know all about why people should and shouldn't be able to lose their jobs, but reality is different.

I was being America-centric, though, because so many people here are Americans, I just assumed you were, too. I hope it's better in NI than it is here, but if you lived here, you'd absolutely know some atheists who wouldn't admit to being such.

Re"Surely your agnostic acquaintances have pointed out that they don't derive their morality from divine rules either?"

Most of my agnostic friends are genuinely good people Anton. Many are involved in noble pastimes such as charity work etc. I think most non Christian people here don't really think about where they derive their morality from. I reckon they probably feel that doing good gives them a better feeling than doing wrong. I would also imagine that they've been taught the difference between right and wrong by their parents when they were children !

Believe it or not Steve, in this country you could be either a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist ! I'm serious. That would affect the level of discrimination that you would experience.

Here, they only care that you believe in Jesus in some way. If you're a jew they'll be skeptical of you. Muslim, they'll be damn skeptical. Atheist, outright hostile.

Not everybody, of course. There are some very fine people here. But also some raging assholes who will treat you about the same way they treat child molesters.

I think most non Christian people here don't really think about where they derive their morality from. I reckon they probably feel that doing good gives them a better feeling than doing wrong. I would also imagine that they've been taught the difference between right and wrong by their parents when they were children !

I'd say more christians don't think about where they get their morality from. If they'd read the bible, they'd know it's not from their god, who commits outlandish crimes throughout the old testament.

Re:"When I read this, I had to pick my jaw up from the floor. How on Earth can you say this about "most non Christian people" and then fail to apply the same reasoning to atheists???"

It was a collective term Aureola. I was referring to all people who don't make any profession of faith. It's just that in the conversations that I've had with these people, they don't generally point me to Greek philosophers of several thousand years ago etc. as a reason for their beliefs. I didn't intend to cause any offence.

Peter:

I was not offended. I was just wondering, since atheists are "non Christians" (just as much as we are "non Jews", "non Hindus", "non Pagans" etc.), why you failed to realize that we, too, basically do what society expects and rewards, what our peers expect and reward, what our elders taught us, etc.

It is a minority of atheists who explore the philosophical, historical, logical premises and consequences of our stance. Most atheists simply live, exactly like most theists. (Hence, I suspect, Registered User's "MYOB", rude as it may have appeared to you: why should we have to 'justify' our lack of a particular belief?).

Re Lenny: there are many, many Christians, even in this country (NI) who are not fundies, and who hold a liberal view on the creation/evolution controversy (if you could call it that). For want of repeating myself, these are the very people that have to be kept on board. As I have said, the existence of whether or not God exists is not the issue here.

As I say , it was a genuine query and not an attempt to "preach" at anyone. Christian's lives revolve around biblical principles (like forgiveness for instance, especially when we feel like taking revenge) so I had wondered how people who were atheists had come to their moral conclusions.

that Brick Testament thing is pretty neat.

"your knowledge of the Bible is so weak you don't know which book the 10 commandments are in"

Genesis. Don't patronise me Wamba. Christians take many of their principles from the teachings of Jesus (hence the name Christian)

"the Bible condones slavery, stoning, killing of witches, etc., and yet you continue to maintain that your life revolves around "Biblical principles"."

So notable atheists down through the years haven't committed any of these crimes against humanity ? What about the great pagan empires around the same time such as the Babylonians, Romans, Alexander the great etc.Don't forget that many of these practices eg slavery were abolished by Christians such as Wilberforce etc.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REwilberforce.htm

Most Christians would find your comments offensive Wamba. Now I know how Carol feels !

"There you go again"

There you go again Wamba ! You are obviously a very bitter person !

Peter:

I am very sorry for you, but you won't find the 10 commandments in Genesis. That was Wamba's point, and your failure to recognize this elementary mistake is telling.

By the way, neither Genesis nor the rest of the Old Testament contain "the teachings of Jesus" (that's what the four Gospels claim to do).

Also, the point is not what atheists have done or failed to do (although you are labelling as "atheists" empires that most certainly weren't: Babylonians, Romans and Macedonians were polytheistic, not atheistic); the point is that you claim to draw moral inspiration from a book which includes many vile moral teachings (those Wamba listed, for instance); and the fact that eventually even Christians recognized that slavery was immoral hardly compensates for the fact that for many, many centuries Christians took slavery for granted, since it was in the Bible.

Peter, I must concur with Wamba: you don't appear to know the book you claim to use as the source of your guidance.

Oh, and by the way, the Roman Empire became unofficially Christian in 313 AD, and officially so in 380 AD. Do you think that public executions, slavery, etc. etc. ceased, or diminished, after that?

Not one iota, I'm afraid.

"I am very sorry for you, but you won't find the 10 commandments in Genesis. That was Wamba's point, and your failure to recognize this elementary mistake is telling"

OK Aureola. So it's Exodus. I have read both books and I was being silly. I see now what now you are both getting at. Point taken Aureola and Wamba ! However, there's no need to get nasty. The man who never made a mistake never made anything as they say !

I wasn't saying that Christianity did make any difference. All I was trying to point out was that this was the norm at the time and probably the Isrealites weren't doing anything different from anyone else when they were in control.

I wasn't saying that Christianity did make any difference. All I was trying to point out was that this was the norm at the time and probably the Isrealites weren't doing anything different from anyone else when they were in control.

OK Aureola. So it's Exodus. I have read both books and I was being silly. I see now what now you are both getting at. Point taken Aureola and Wamba ! However, there's no need to get nasty. The man who never made a mistake never made anything as they say

Re Lenny: there are many, many Christians, even in this country (NI) who are not fundies, and who hold a liberal view on the creation/evolution controversy (if you could call it that). For want of repeating myself, these are the very people that have to be kept on board. As I have said, the existence of whether or not God exists is not the issue here.

think about the innerancy of the KJB in light of the history not only of how it came to be, but in the light of recent discoveries as well.

There is, of course, a growing movement amongst fundies to dump the King James Version, since King James was a homosexual. The bigots might have to find another idol to worship.

The ironic thing is - fundies usually discard the really nice parts of the Bible (by that, I mean the parts that I would have no compulsion in letting my own children read) in favour of the foulest parts, those rooted in late Bronze - early Iron age "my sky daddy is bigger than yours, nyaah, nyaah, nyaah" mentality.

...instead of "compulsion", read "hesitation" there.

Fingers much too fast, as usual.

Well, people tend to create god in their own image. Talk to all the touchie-feelie liberal Christians, and they like to talk about "love thy neighbor" and "how you treat the least of them is how you treat me", whose message is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

The fundies prefer their god to be a harsh, judgemental, intolerant prick, whose only message is "do what I tell you, or ELSE". Just like *they* are. (shrug)

There is, of course, a growing movement amongst fundies to dump the King James Version, since King James was a homosexual.

Seriously?

state baptists aren't going to recognize churches which allow gays. No, not as preachers or whatever, allowing them in the congregation.

Speaking at a press conference Gary Bauer said, "I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way".

Well, as I've often noted, it's hard to tell the spoof from the real. There is NOTHING so idiotic or silly that can be said as satire, that hasn't been said by one fundie or another in all seriousness.

I'm going to look for another source on that

good enough for me!

i am happy mostly - though terribly sick at times - the medicine is not a perfect fix - i think some weed would help but caant find any - Kant find any...