Personally I find Religion to be one of the worst aspects of human nature.

Declaring some human belief as intolerable just because it isn't the same as the one you believe.

Humans are superstitious and have illogical thoughts. We should do everything in our power to ensure this doesn't lead to other humans suffering.

Humans evolved to live in the prairie and throw sticks at antelopes. Most of us consider the fact that we're not doing so right now very enjoyable and good. If you're such a how humans are, then why aren't you living in caves? If you support superstition and illogical thoughts, then why do you go see a doctor instead of pray?

Right, because athletes don't practice just because they are wearing lucky socks.

You seem to be forgetting about the whole Jesuit priest branch of Christianity. Or the religious drive to explore the world and spread the "good word" which lead to discoveries in diveristy and Darwin's explorations.

There is a concept in humanity called balance, and people who don't support balance end up hurting everybody.

What you also seem to be forgetting is that many superstitions are removed -AFTER- the advances in medicine and science and government, not before.

Well then it's lucky there is a New Atheist movement to balance things out then, surely?

For being a group who is self proclaimed logical and rational, you sure seem to jump to large conclusions, ignore reality, and generally base your opinions on generasations and stereotypes, rather than actual evidence and concrete data.

But there isn't much else you can expect from fundamentalists.

I didn't know that where a person lives (the praiere) , or how they make a living (throwing sticks) is an integeral part of what makes humans, humans.

However, it is precisely the irrational thoughts and superstitions that lead people to think outside the box, and gain inspirations. Its the balance of those inspirations with reality which gives us progress, not the advacement of one over the decline of the other.

The new atheist movement is an extreme and a form of fundmentalism, it doesn't balance anything out.

However, the revival of religion within the Democratic party by people like Obama and Clinton, focusing on charity and "love your neighbor", is a good example of balance.

Right. The athlete did better once when he wore the socks, so he continues to wear them. When he doesn't wear them for some reason, he's so worried about it that he does worse. That is actually an argument against superstition.

So you're anti-gay marriage then? Cause I wouldn't call a same-sex couple raising a child balanced, which is the argument that a lot of rightwingers use as an actual argument. Thank you, but I can do without that.


Maybe culturally, but on the individual level, the people who made the advances had to be rid of the superstition before they could make them in the first place. You don't go sailing your ship beyond the horizon if you think you're going to fall off the earth. You only do that if you believe otherwise.

:Removed personal attack:


The Atheletes that I know who wear the equivelent of lucky socks, don't do worse when they are not wearing them.

I'm not sure why you would bring marriage in as an example when there conversation is discussing society as a whole. Obviously, not all men think and act the exact same way, and not all women think and act the exact same way, so what the gender of a parent is, will not tell you at all if the upbringing is balanced or not.

As for your idea of rejecting superstionons, I point you to the recent publication of Newton's religious papers.

Vikings for example, were the first explorers, finding America long before Christain Europe. They were also, much more supersticious about exploration and travel than any of the Chrstain explorers.

Daganev, there are fundamentalist religious groups as well, FYI. In fact, there are probably many mroe religious fundamentalists than "Atheist fundamentalists". So you're right in that it doesn't balance it out, but you're right for all the wrong reasons.

Except that i'm not an atheist. And you can go ahead and think my position is stupid, as that frees me and everyone else to think yours is, thus killing any chance of an intelligent discussion.

Atheletes who truly believe the superstition about a lucky object or ritual will worry about it should something go wrong. If they are preoccupied, it is more likely that they will do worse than usual. Its a self-fullfilling prophecy, and to say situations like that don't happen is.. well.. stupid.

Its the idea that balance in all situations is not the best way, or even what you think it is. You just sort of proved my point. You are assuming that logic has to be balanced by superstition. I disagree. I think logic needs to be balanced with an open mind--which is vastly different than being superstitious.

Again, you're saying that just because their culture was superstitious, that the Vikings who actually did the exploring believed that they would be consumed by the mists. Some might have gotten lost, yeah, but that actually makes exploration a bad example, because its something that could happen by accident. Running medical experiments on dead bodies, however, isn't. And I'm sure that even if all of Christiandom was against the idea of an autopsy, the doctors risking their lives to do them did not suffer from the same superstition.

So please, continue to call me stupid, but you haven't actually countered my argument.

"Atheist fundamentalism" is just a silly slur that religious "moderates" use to attack atheists who don't sit on the metaphorical back of the bus. In truth, many religious folk have claimed that no amount of evidence would convince them of the non-existence of god; if all the evidence in the world points against their beliefs (Often tangential beliefs which relate to real life - like creationism) they would still stand by their beliefs. Atheists, or rather the common garden-variety Dawkins, Hitchens or Myers atheists like myself, know exactly what would make them give up on any belief. That's the difference between fundamentalists and us - We can change our minds on things. I've changed my mind on matters both minor and major; and, in fact, changing one's opinion is the basis of science.

Dawkings has an anecdote he uses to exemplify this - as a student, he once had a professor who resolutely stood by a particular biological theory; what it was isn't important, just that it was a contested matter in biology at the time. Until said professor listened to a lecture by another, visiting professor exposing the opposing theory and newly discovered evidence; at the end of the lecture, he stood up, shook the visiting professor's hand, and thanked him for proving him wrong; the students present are supposed to have actually applauded at this exchange.. That's the basic ideal of how science works, and of how anyone with a naturalistic worldview thinks. How can you call that fundamentalist? How can you say we're fundamentalists for criticising religion? Religion and superstition isn't true; there's no reason to think it's true; anything you claim about it being good or necessary or "part of human nature" has no relation to its truth value; and quite often it's damaging. You go tell that to the relatives of soldiers who had their funerals picketed by Phelps and his ilk; you go tell victims of suicide bombings that religion is above criticism. It's not; it shouldn't be; and atheists should no longer be discriminated against for not sharing some stupid fantasy. So excuse me if I'm angry and strident; it tends to happen to people who see their opinions being dismissed, when kooks like Fallwell and the people behind that ridiculous creation museum in the midwest US are taken seriously.

Atheists having a stronger voice is an extreme? Fundamentalist? By comparison to religious fundamentalist groups... the majority of New Atheists are still quite benign. I may be wrong, and I would be disappointed to be proved wrong, but I haven't seen any mainstream New Atheists calling for religious people to be stripped of rights... and yet to quote George Bush Senior "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Your "balance" is still very strongly tipped in religions favour.



They explored and discovered lands in spite of their superstitions, not because of them. As for the number of times superstitious/religious beliefs have held back progress. I refer you to the Dark Ages, aptly named.



Your half right, irrational thoughts, yes. But superstitions, no, they do the opposite, they make people think inside the box. To bring back the Norse theme, why bother to think about what lightning really is when we already know it is Thor and his hammer?

This thread is very vitriolic.

:removed for personal attacks:

You need to learn more about the nature of an inquisitive mind.

This is the New Atheist thread, not the random idiotic fundamentalist religious group thread.

It is so common of Fundamentalists, to assume that just because you are against them, that means you are pro their exact opposite.


If Dawkins finds it so important to fight for Truth, then why does he not fight against the Monarchy and idea of nobles in England?

A different standard together, of course, applies to religious people such as yourself. After all, "it's beliefs!"

And Caffrey's entirely right about that point, btw. A large majority of these things fall under the blanket of what are called "thought-terminating cliches." Like a lot of old proverbs, they're pretty counterproductive as far as innovative thought is concerned. Ever heard the phrase "sacred cows make great steaks"?

EDIT: And because religion is a worldwide thing. Our monarchy, obviously, isn't. I'm not defending it, but they're quite clearly entirely different scales of problem.

Normally you clean up your own room before telling your neighbors how to clean up theirs.

If you think having religious beliefs or ideas about how things are, limits one's ability to innovate or think outside the box, then all I can do is assume you hold negative stereotypes about people. It is just lunacy to think that.

Read up on Newton's latest published writings if you don't know what I'm talking about. http://www.isaac-newton.org/

If my room has a few cobwebs and my neighbour has several bags of full rubbish cluttering their balcony I don't think I'd be remiss to politely register a complaint.

And I think pretending the influence these thought-terminating cliches have on the way people think doesn't exist is far nuttier. If you're actually denying that I may have to find the time to find some kind of proof about it...but I could also just refer you to the example someone posted earlier: you're not going to try to sail over the edge of the world if you think you'll die from it because you never challenged the idea the world is flat.

Moderator fight.