Sam Harris/ RRS

[Judas33]

I am a Christian, but I've studied a lot of atheism. Although I disagree with Sam Harris on many of his points, I also agree with many of the things he despises about religion.

On the other hand, the rational response squad seems to be very angry toward Christians. There websties calls theism a "mind-disorder." That statement doesn't seem to spark any real debate.

For any atheists, who/what do you want representing your worldview? Are there any atheists who don't like the Rational Responders representing atheism?

[Tom62]

Welcome Judas33. On this forum we are not angry towards christians. We like open discussions about christianity and atheism, but get upset when people don't follow a decent code of conduct. Preaching, flaming, trolling, spamming, calling people names, etc. etc. is (like in any other forum) not appreciated.

I've never heard from the rational response squad, maybe that's because I don't live in the States. Calling theism a "mind-disorder" sounds however a bit too radical too me. I myself am more into a friendly coexistence between theists and non-theists. I don't like militant people whether they are theists or not. Anyway, what you believe in is fine for me, as long as you don't expect me to believe in what you believe.

[Squid]

I remember when the guys in RRS first got the idea of creating it over on the Atheist Network.  To a point I suppose I can understand why they do what they do - it is sort of an atheist answer to the "in your face" evangelical, fundamentalist theists.  However, I can't say that I agree with much of their actions.

My view has always been one of compromise.  We will probably never see the fall of all religion - that is fantasy to think such.  What I would like to see happen is for people to have more understanding and less contempt just because someone holds a different view than I do.  What makes it difficult is those who aren't able to think things through or even consider why someone would think differently from them - these are the type of people who shoot doctors working at abortion clinics, demean children whose parents are openly atheist, demean the children of the parents who fight to keep evolution in their child's school.  These type of people produce intolerance and hate and pass it on to their offspring - I cannot count the number of times I've heard a kid give their story of questioning their belief in a deity only to have their peers ostracize them, heckle them and in some cases even physically beat them just for not unquestionably accepting the existence of a god.  They have embraced the primal nature of us humans - to have dislike, disgust and contempt for anything we see as "different", "weird" or "abnormal".

Reasons like that and I can understand why the RRS may do some of what they do.  Unfortunately, it doesn't help really.  It justs pisses off the more zealous even more.

Some of the people I admired the most and could best represent my views at least are now gone such as Carl Sagan, Stephen Gould and Ernst Mayr - however, ultimately, if anyone wants to know what I think - they should ask me - no one can speak for me better than I can.

[SteveS]

Yeah, I've got my issues with the RSS.  I've said that before in various threads.  Personally, they seem fine to me.  They did a decent job on nightline, could've been better, but it's gotta be hard in front of those TV cameras.  Kirk Cameron and Ray "Banana" Comfort had a decided advantage in terms of comfort level with the setting.

I really disliked the War on Easter.  Way too intrusive.  But I did like the Blasphemy Challenge --- anyone who didn't certainly didn't have to browse to YouTube and search for the videos.  That's a lot different then leaving little messages in the church pews.  Nobody had a choice there, they went to church and got atheist propaganda in their face.  Probably not why they went to church.

So --- it's not the way RSS represents atheism that bothers me as much as some (not all) of the techniques they have used to get their message out.

For the record on public atheists, I like Sam Harris.  He hasn't ever really rubbed me wrong that I've seen so far.  I like Richard Dawkins.  I liked Carl Sagan.  I really liked Douglas Adams.

[Judas33]

In my opinion, if atheism wants to make itself more appealing to people, the RRS method is a bad way of doing it. Their tactics seem to me to be equally as bad as fundamentalist Christianity. Making a judgment that someone is stupid simply due to their beliefs never leads to tolerance or respect.

On another note, I said above that I do like Sam Harris. However, I was surprised that he feels that Jesus was a mythical person. I've done a lot of investigation into the issue and found no serious reason to think that Jesus was not a real person in some capacity. The "Jesus Myth" video that Harris was in had several historical and biblical problems.

Considering that I find Harris to be well-educated in most of his speeches, I find it hard to believe that he truly buys into the Jesus Myth theory.

[tacoma_kyle]

Yeah they were a little harsh, and some statements were pretty unnecessary.

Their good, but it's hard to maintain composure on a setting of the senario for how many times they have done that.

But at the same time, the statements of atheists discussing the being of the divine are quite upsetting to many believers. I think Wired magazine said this, something along the lines...'Atheism essentially takes all of the values that many have embraced in their lives and throws them out the window.' Thats how many take it as well.

For the  record, that was in no way the quote, but thats the analogy used when it was stated.


Edit:

Additionally a atheist vs religion argument will often times seem like (from the atheists perspective) they are arguing with a complete moron. Remember....from their perspective. Why? It makes absolutely no ration sense to us. When yo argue with a idiot, many tend to be rather harsh because the stupidity gets annoying; you will talk your mind more freely and less formally. To us it is so basic it should almost be common sense. I am pretty sure I was seein that in the RSS and I know it gets me as well. Among others in net videos...

I am in no way stating all religious are morons or anything of the like. I am just stating WHAT I THINK TO BE the mindset of a atheist in a serious argument of religion vs god.

[Judas33]

I understand what you are saying about the mindset during that kind of arguement. However, I don't understadn how anyone could have such a mindset. Disproving the existence of a deity is impossible, thus you cannot consider someone a complete moron simply for believing in a god.

I say the same thing to Christians who act as though atheists are idiots. Obviously, there is no way to prove the existene of god. Therefore, you can assume someone lack intellect simply becasue they don't believe in god.

[McQ]

I understand what you are saying about the mindset during that kind of arguement. However, I don't understadn how anyone could have such a mindset. Disproving the existence of a deity is impossible, thus you cannot consider someone a complete moron simply for believing in a god.

I say the same thing to Christians who act as though atheists are idiots. Obviously, there is no way to prove the existene of god. Therefore, you can assume someone lack intellect simply becasue they don't believe in god.

The problem is that one can always state the existence of something, say a deity, that cannot be disproved. How about Bertrand Russell's Teapot in space? You can't disprove it, but why should you believe it is there?

You mention that there is no way to prove the existence of god. Faith, as you know is belief regardless of proof. So those who believe in the christian god don't need to prove he exists, right?

The point is that you can disprove certain claims that biblical literalists use as proof of their religion. It is foolish to believe in the face of evidence against a specific tenet, such as a 6000 year old Earth, or that a single flood carved the Grand Canyon.

I don't call christians idiots or fools for their "faith" in a deity. My own wife is a believer, and I once was. What I find foolish and idiotic is dogmatism, intellectual dishonesty, and belief in an unwarranted and unsupportable tenet of a religion. Within any religion.

And yes, if my own wife were to say that she believed the Grand Canyon was carved out in a single deluge, I would tell her it is a foolish belief, and exactly why it is.

[SteveS]

On another note, I said above that I do like Sam Harris. However, I was surprised that he feels that Jesus was a mythical person. I've done a lot of investigation into the issue and found no serious reason to think that Jesus was not a real person in some capacity. The "Jesus Myth" video that Harris was in had several historical and biblical problems.

Yeah - this bugs me because I consider it bad strategy.  It's a worthless argument to fight.  If Jesus was a real, factual historical person, that has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever on the validity of his "son-of-god" status, or his magical powers, or anything else.  So --- if the atheists are wrong on this, then people will conclude they're wrong on other things (because people are like that) and they will jump to the conclusion that since Jesus did exist he must be the son of god.  So why risk it?  Focus on somebody actually showing historical evidence that Jesus really could transmute matter (water -> wine, gee, if you could turn water -> beer I'd like to have him around my place), really could walk on water, that he really came back to life after he died, etc.  That's the battle to fight, IMHO.

the RRS method is a bad way of doing it.

I basically agree with you, because the majority of their tactics do strike me this way.  But debating Cameron/Comfort on Nightline?  That's a good thing to do.  And the Blasphemy Challenge was a good thing to do.  Just knock off the crap like the "War on Easter".

Their tactics seem to me to be equally as bad as fundamentalist Christianity.

Now this I'm going to disagree with - strongly.  Fundie Xtians have historically passed laws governing our actions - no booze on Sunday (which really bugs me  :wink:  ), abortion is illegal, etc.  They also try to make religious education mandatory in public schools which are owned and paid for by the people of a nation that is, by it's constitution, supposed to offer freedom of religion.  There is no possible way that I can equate what RSS is doing with actions of this magnitude.  I consider them to be more in bad taste with some of their actions - not socially oppressive like the fundie Xtians are.

[Kestrel]

Faith, as you know is belief regardless of proof.

Ummm...      

So those who believe in the christian god don't need to prove he exists, right?

Correct. Unless they begin imposing what they feel is correct upon others, based upon those beliefs.

[McQ]

Faith, as you know is belief regardless of proof.

Ummm...      

So those who believe in the christian god don't need to prove he exists, right?

Correct. Unless they begin imposing what they feel is correct upon others, based upon those beliefs.

Maybe that wasn't as clear as I would have liked, but it is accurate. Let me slightly rephrase it from Merriam-Webster's on-line Dictionary:

Faith...2 a  (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God  (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b  (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof  (2) : complete trust

I'm trying to say that according to christian doctrine, a christian does not have to rely on evidence of god to believe. God does not have to prove himself. This goes hand in hand with the above definition. By definition, faith does not have to be obtained by proof.

I'm just trying to be a little clearer on the word faith, and not trying to place an unneeded burden of proof on a christian who argues solely from the point of "faith".

A simple faith in a god or god does not require backing up with evidence, unless of course, you are Kirk Cameron, who can "prove" god exists very scientifically with the use of a banana as a visual aid.  

[Kestrel]

Aye. My sticking point is/was the word, regardless.

[McQ]

Aye. My sticking point is/was the word, regardless.

Oh, yeah. I see what you mean. That was horribly the wrong word!
 :oops:
Only after you pointed it out did I realize I had used regardless when I meant something completely different. Take out regardless and put in without the need for...

I was trying to express that christians can believe on faith alone. I don't think that means to believe without some consideration though. I hope I got that better this time!
 

[tacoma_kyle]

Disproving the existence of a deity is impossible

Actually I would have to disagree, or it should at least be restated through another view. It should say 'proving the existence of a diety is impossible.' Kind of like "guilty until proven otherwise" -vs- "innocent until proven otherwise."

Why is that? There is absolutely no evidence of any sort of divine beings. The only reason why they exists is because people think they do for whatever reason. Ever say to someone, "There is absolutely no evidence of a god," and then the other person retorts, "Prove to me there is no evidence"? I have hit that a few times, ya know what I say? "What evidence do I need."

Really what evidence do I need to state there is not a god? Scientific data stating there is no evidence of divine poweres? uhh haha nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Even still people dont believe that for some reason maybe the 'miricale' reason. "Science couldn't explain that!" Some quote from a dumb-fuck on TV a few years back commenting on a tornado hitting a catholic school I recall, how ironic that he wore glasses...oh do I wish I was there...

In the instances that there seems to be a divine intervention is merely a coincidence that the circumstances went right for someone. People just seem to forget how many others have been lost in accidents compared to how many survive a odd situation. Then they give credit to god that they survived.

[SteveS]

Then they give credit to god that they survived.

You know, whenever someone says that, isn't it sort of insulting to the victims that were not saved?  If God (big G, as in the Christian god) saved them, why not the others?  Just seems sort of like a slam on the people that died.

Anyway, if we think people are being saved God, how do we know Satan didn't save them?  That they're so rotten they'll have more time on earth to screw things up for other decent people, so maybe it was the devil that decided not to save the good people and just let them perish while he preserved his unwitting minions?

Man, that would be a hell of a rude thing to say to someone who just survived an accident, wouldn't it?  Yeah, so, forget I said anything......