No, it's not an asinine idea. Saying that if I drive my car non-stop then it must at some time run out of gas is not asinine. It's a quite logical consequence. Now, if the same journalist got hold of this statement, she might just write that it's my desire to see the world run out of gas. Apparantly, you'd eat it raw and call me an asinine rambling idiot with hidden agendas and subversive ideas. A conclusion made by your wishful thinking with a little help from a reporter, - not by my own statement.

As for Dawkins, you're creating more strawmen. You may not like the ideas that Dawkins espouse - who cares - but in no way can you with that article in your hand claim that Dawkins said anything relating to the headline on that particular convention. Ergo, it's asinine and nonsense to claim the headline as being anything but the journalist's perogative known as creative freedom.

Trust me on this one, Thane: I would never ask you to connect any dots

Harris said he believed science must ultimately destroy religion.

To this I said: "That IS an asinine idea itself."

It IS asinine because many of histories brightest scientists have turned to religion BECAUSE science has made them consider such things. This isn't going to change, it's part of the human condition. It's part of reality. We never will "evolve" into gods no matter how much some of us beleive such bullshit.

You would have us beleive that the idea that science will one day destroy religion is comparable to saying that "if I drive my car non-stop then it must at some time run out of gas."

In other words, it's a given that science will destroy religion according to you.

Lets see. Since we seem to be in the business of being asinine, if I stand on my head, I'm holding up the entire planet. This would make me the strongest living being in this solar system.

...an asinine rambling idiot with hidden agendas and subversive ideas ?

No, I wouldn't say your deserving of such high praise YET.

So it's a "strawman" to point out that this dawkins states: The "preposterous nonsense of religious customs" and "so-called moderate Christianity is simply an evasion." and "If you've been taught to believe it by moderates, what's to stop you from taking the next step and blowing yourself up?" and that he portays a black-and-white intellectual battle between atheism and religion.

It's a strawman to say that the message dawkins and creeps like him are delivering is that religion needs to be destroyed or will be destroyed by SCIENCE.

Yes, well, so you tell me. Proving early on that any efforts I might make to connect the dots for you would be a waste of time.

But I knew this ahead of time so.....

Is intolerance of the KKK the same as KKK intolerance of blacks? Since when is intolerance of the the intolerant equal?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

It isn't.

It's dangerously foolish to tolerate the intolerant.

They may be so intolerant that they'll KILL you. Is it safe to tolerate such intolerance ?

No.

Just because two sides are equally passionate does not mean that the truth resides at the 50/50 mark. The idea that neither side needs concede they are wrong is the most dangerous twisting of liberalism we've encountered.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I won't speak for SMadsen but i think the metaphor is more like this:

Science must destroy religion is more like saying My car must be filled with gas.

Harris' argument is that religion intermixed with modern weapons and economies are an apocalypse waiting to happen. History has shown us that people believe so strongly in their faiths that they are willing to kill and die for it. Traditionally, this was not a existential issue. However, in the modern world we do in fact possess the ability to wipe each other out with chem, bio, and nuclear weapons - likewise, the economy we pursue has the potential to wreak massive (potentially catastrophic) havoc on the ecosystem. It has become an existential issue.

So what Sam Harris is arguing is that Science (Reason, more properly) must destroy religion..... or else......

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I'm very surprised that this is coming from you.

The idea that neither side needs concede they are wrong is the most dangerous twisting of liberalism we've encountered.

Which I agree with.

I think

Liberalism HAS been twisted out of shape so far it has become dangerous. It is this twisting out of shape that it has undergone that has made talkers on talk radio have much to talk about :-) It is this extreme twisting out of shape that has made liberalism a foul word in some circles.

That is what it appears he is attempting to say. It doesn't work at all though.

A car must have it's tank filled if it is to have it's engine run and do the work of moving that car.

Science, by it's nature and necessity, will NOT "destroy" religion.

Mmmmmmm... perhaps it has. It IS possible that religion intermixed with modern weapons and economies are an apocalypse waiting to happen.

Proof ?

Let us donate to every Islamic nation nuclear weapons and technologies and watch that proof happen.

Rather quickly I might add.

That isn't to say that ALL religions are as dangerous in this area. But a significant number still ARE.

Which is STILL incorrect. Science may MODERATE religion (as it and human technology and progression has also) but destroy ?

I think I can safely stick to my beginning term for this idea.

That being asinine.

Whoa, this doesn't make sense. If science is able to destroy religion then no one will become god or gods, - otherwise religion would not have been destroyed, would it now? Heh ...

Nope. I suggested that Harris, according to the qoute in the article, believes it to be a given that science will ultimately destroy religion. Akin to the natural consequence that a car will eventually run out of gas. I believe Harris meant this as science being able to remove any basis for apologetic attempts to explain religious scripture with worldly phenomena.

By the way, just for the fun of it, please notice that I previously expressed my disagreement with this idea. You're just creating more strawmen as you continuously try to put words into the mouths of others.

Well, that is indeed a fine example of what I suspect Harris was on about: Reason being able to destroy myth. Thank you.

Yes, it is a strawman to imply that Dawkins said what the headline states. If anything, I'd say that Dawkins wants religion to be tossed away entirely. I.e., NOT destroyed by science but destroyed by the human ability to think for themselves. Big difference, dude.

If you read this post of yours again someday, you will probably notice the argument you're having with the strawman you created.

Oh you are so close, Cpt. Trips, sooo close. And yet so far away.

Now, what if Sam Harris means that in order to have its engine run and do the work of spreading its tenets, religion must have it's "tanks" filled with apologetic claims about the natural world, such as, in, say, Christianity, evidence of creation, evidence of Adam and Eve having actually existed (with or without bellybuttons), evidence of the Flood, of dinosaurs among humans, of a Jewish exodus from Egypt etc., etc.? What if Sam Harris means that, as science finds these scenarios and phenomena to be less than probable due to actual evidence, religion will have less and less to put into the tank, thus resulting in the demise of itself.

And again, before you run of with yet more straw, I DO NOT agree with the idea that religion cannot exist without apologetics. Point is still merely that no one in the article specifically expressed a wish for science to destroy religion.

Read ALL of # 47 and 53 again.

I've said all I mean to say on this matter and there's no reason for either of us to waste more time on it.

I have to say that I think this is one of the best posts you have ever writen Trips; and one that makes the most sense. I'm still curious therefore why you insist on generalising everything and taking the words of the quote in the OP and having him speak for all atheists?