The following video is very long (~90 min), and incredibly biased in favor of Christianity (just as Dr. Dawkins is biased in favor of non-theism). However, I think it presents an interesting argument. Be fairly warned, it is a response to a conspiracy video, and therefore, has a rather odd agenda.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775

As Dawkins himself notes, it is impossible to prove a negative. All we can do is compare the evidence available to us.

I wish Dawkins would lay off the "most atheists are smarter than the average human" thing. It reeks of elitism... and I've met plenty of atheists who couldn't name the capital of their state if you waterboarded them. They tend to be the more militant ones. :) I'm also no fan of his appeals to authority. Otherwise a decent speech from him.

Zaphod,

how is that a good film?

I checked out shortly after they discredited a source for being "homosexual".

Zeitgeist takes that obvious, but rarely discussed origin of the Jesus story and somehow connects it with 9/11.

I wish Dawkins would lay off the "most atheists are smarter than the average human" thing.

I agree, although I think there is an argument to be made that knowledge of science conflicts with religion. An Atheist IQ tests might reflect this on average but there are plenty of exceptions.

Using the Bible as evidence for theism is sort of like using The Hobbit as evidence for dragons. Worse actually because of when it was written.

The value of mythology is ruined when it is believed to be true.

TEDTalks are great, wish I could afford to attend one of the conferences.

TEDTalks are great, wish I could afford to attend one of the conferences.

They need a lottery for us poor folks.

Reaching a conclusion without evidence isn't very accurate.

They need a lottery for us poor folks.

The following video is very long (~90 min), and incredibly biased in favor of Christianity (just as Dr. Dawkins is biased in favor of non-theism).

High office in the greatest country in the world is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it: the intelligentsia. Unless, they're prepared to lie about their beliefs. To put it bluntly: American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest.

RedSeven:

I didn't say "good", I said "interesting". As Tsun Zsu says: know they enemy.

Will:

RD's argument is contingent on the acceptance that you cannot prove a negative. There is NO evidence for atheism, and never can be.

The best evidence for atheism is a lack of evidence for theism.

Either way, clearly the wrong video for this crowd. I think this stuff is fascinating. Assuming Jesus was just some dude, or never existed at all, why did he catch on like he did, when he did?

My interest in anthropological more so than biological. Replace "Jesus Christ" with "Santa Claus" and my questions remain the same.

I think one major problem atheists face is the facile charge of elitism. I think a major reason for this is because people confound elite with entitlement. Strictly speaking, most people in the U.S. strive to be elitist or at least defer to the elite in one way or another.

All else being equal, nobody wants to buy anything but the best product or hire the best lawyer, mechanic, doctor, etc. Take for example, politics. We always elect elites of one brand or another. The leaders tend to possess some extreme trait, whether it be wealth, connections, social standing, political skills, intelligence, education, etc. I can't think of a single time in U.S. history where a non-elite of some stripe has achieved anything significant. Joe-sixpack isn't even running for office. Despite his lowbrow intellect, Bush is of the social/wealth/political elite. Kerry of the political elite. Obama of the rhetorical and intellectual elite, etc.

What really chaps my ass is that somehow, the intelligentsia elite are more marginalized than all the others. People (case in point Americans) can swallow the social, political, and economic advantages given at birth to the likes of a Bush without batting a lash. But when comes to a "technocrat" like Al Gore, he is considered arrogant, snobbish, etc.

Quite frankly, when drains need to be unplugged, hire an "elite" plumber if you can. If you are suffering from a difficult to treat disease, go to an "elite" doctor if you can afford it. And if we as a country need to make very difficult decisions, we should hire an elite thinker and decision maker. We can afford it. The same goes for all political offices.

Rather than forcing aspirants to high office to hide or spin an "elitist" pedigree, they should be encouraged to flaunt it as a job skill. By "elitist", I am of course excluding the baggage that goes along with that word, namely that elites are entitled to lead. The job should be awarded competitively of course and based on skills not entitlement. However, simply because one distinguishes oneself in being a better thinker doesn't mean they are snobbish. If a great mechanic can express confidence in repairing a car better than the average person, then a great thinker and politician can express great confidence in his ability to carry out the people's business better than the average Joe. And though this may be an "elitist" attitude, it isn't a priori unacceptable and should recommend the person for office rather than disqualify them for it.

LwPhD:

Speaking personally, the biggest reason I reject elitism (in politics) is simply due to the fact that these "elites" have run the show for the past X years, and have done a pretty lousy job at it.

My problem with atheists is not elitism, but rather an illogical arrogance.

Coincidentally, I have the same beef with the theists.

Bottom line: atheists are correct when they say that no scientific evidence of the supernatural exists (and it could not exist, lest the supernatural be redefined as natural and observable). Theists are correct to say that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Both groups will find out the day they die, and not a moment before.

Mocking a person for their belief is simply rude, and does nothing to further the debate or increase mutual understanding.

Even if Jesus was a total fraud, I still see value in the idea of "loving thy enemy". Does that make me naive and foolish? Don't atheists wish the "bible thumpers" would apply this same attitude to them?

why did he catch on like he did, when he did?

Marketing. Same thing with Santa Claus. (And disco.)

Zaphod

There is NO evidence for atheism, and never can be.

There most certainly is. There is not definitive proof, and you need to define "God" before you can truely test a god hypothesis, but there is plenty of evidence.

Natural law, historical analysis, and psychology all give us evidence.

RedSeven:

You. Cannot. Prove. A. Negative. It is a logical fallacy.

Specific example: fossil records. Does this prove atheism? No, it proves that life on earth progressed and evolved over millions of years.

This disproves the bible, sure. But that is not the issue at hand.

Evolution, and all the evidence of evolution, does not DISprove god, rather, it PROVES evolution. These are distinct issues.

You can prove evolution, you can prove that masses of men believe illogical things, you can prove that the bible and church is a scientifically incorrect, you might even prove that Jesus was, in reality, a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

However, none of this would disprove the existence of a supernatural deity.

That's the catch-22 of any supernatural force. If it exists beyond the scope of the observable universe, the scientific method is powerless to help you. The issue is no longer science at all, but rather, philosophy and logic.

You cannot prove that God did not create the universe. You can, however, prove that the universe was created by a natural process.

I cannot prove that I did not steal $10,000. I can, however, prove that I was reading to orphans at the time of this theft.

Sorry to be a pedantic twit about this, but it drives me nuts that for all the talk of "reason" and "logic" and "objective facts", most atheists claim completely unfounded things, and fall into this paradox again and again- just like the theists do.

Take it the other way. Say a man claiming to be Jesus appeared at TED and walked across water, in absolute violation of fluid dynamics. This might serve as evidence of the supernatural, or, reveal a misunderstanding we hold about fluid dynamics. i.e. is it a miracle, or some sort of technology not yet widely understood, which allows this walking on water feat?

Zaph

I think you are saying the same thing I just said only from a slightly different perspective.

You indeed cannot disprove the existence of any possible vision of a god.

That said for each proposed theory of god we get from religion there is certainly some evidence that refutes the claim and little or no evidence that supports it. Only those definitions of god that simply equate the term with the universe are strictly philosophical.

God as an active participant in our world is disputed by Scientific evidence, Religion and god as concepts with origins outside the human race are disputed by historical review of the development of religions.

Psychology and Socialogy also reveal facts about human nature that explain the concept of God better then any super natural explanation.

Several of the TED presentations talked about such things.

@Zaphod

I'm really sad that one of poll threads was deleted. Something I posed in it addresses some of your comments almost directly. I think some of the readers were having trouble with the poll messing up the blog, so I suppose Norm nixed it to fix the problem.

Anyway, in a nutshell, I agree with you insofar as I think atheists should avoid claiming that they can prove a negative. However, rather than give god, religion, whatever, an unassailable position from which they can argue, I think it definitively undermines them. Some people claim (like Gould for example) that religion and science have non-overlapping spheres of relevance and are internally valid and consistent if considered from their own perspectives. However, I think a flat earth hypothesis or a geocentric universe are both more reasonable than religion. In fact, for many applications, both of those perspectives are serviceable approximations. But religion can't even make a unique claim to philosophy or ethics, as secular exercises in those topics fare just fine without religion.

I think religion, belief in god etc are more akin to loyalty to sports teams for example, but obviously more important to most people who hold them than sports. (This isn't always the case. Have you ever met a Brazilian soccer fan?) Anyway, these are both arbitrary personal beliefs and have little logically to recommend them, but are also harmless as long as they remain personal and aren't imposed on others. If this were the way religions really worked (ie they were personal, and followers only derived personal benefits from them and such beliefs only rarely intruded on me), then I'd have no more problem with religion than I do with soccer. In fact, 90% of religious people I know are exactly of this variety. But it is that remaining 10% that's the problem.

LwPhD:

I think religion, belief in god etc are more akin to loyalty to sports teams"

Excellent analogy. This certainly describes most "identity Christians" I know.

I'm sorry I missed the rest of that thread.

RedSeven:

...for each proposed theory of god we get from religion there is certainly some evidence that refutes the claim and little or no evidence that supports it. Only those definitions of god that simply equate the term with the universe are strictly philosophical.

I think we are indeed saying the same things, from different perspectives.

Looking at this from the "Einstein's God" view of the universe, science and God are quite compatible. Those who view the gospel as infallible are doomed to reject science, because the scriptures do indeed conflict with our modern world view.

And looking at this from a Carl Jung perspective, I think it is amazing that JC should still be such a hot topic today- especially if he was simply a charlatan, or never existed at all.

I was surprised to learn that the Jewish Talmud makes reference to "Jeshua of Nazerine", and confirmed this with my own study. Even those who rejected the messiah regarded him as a prophet. Why? Political shenanigans? Or had they witnessed something truly miraculous?

On the Dawkins Scale I find myself constantly shifting between a 10% and 90%. I feel a genuine connection to some "higher power" in my heart. I also accept that this might be a warning sign of schizophrenia. Food for thought.

did anyone else notice his half out half in collar?

I feel a genuine connection to some "higher power" in my heart

The only "higher spirit" that I feel a connection to is the "spirit" within my own heart and beliefs. And yet, I have a closer connection to those who believe in "God" and who believe that we should all join hands and help those who are poor and disenfranchised than I do to those who are atheists who are Republicans who believe in the every-man-for-himself type of philosopy.

In the end, I could care less what anyone believes as concerns "God" or spirits or whatever. I just hope that all of these people care about their fellow citizens.

I feel a genuine connection to some "higher power" in my heart

I don't think its schizophrenia unless you hear the higher spirit talking to you.

I feel connected although as an atheist I don't think of it as being connected to a Higher power.

Emotional connections with groups of people and the world around us are definitely moving. I think it is perhaps the greatest failing of religion that it deems these feelings "magical" relationships with otherworldly beings in which ones relationship is that of insignificant bug to overlords rather then it just another beautiful part of life in the real world.

I say it like this:

Me and God is tight; its his fan clubs I can't stand.

Who or what is God? No idea. Quite possibly, a metaphoric representation of the emotions you describe above. Either way, I think it makes the point nicely.