Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

What if it had been a book that critical of Islam, Or Gays. That will never happen because we are so sensitive to their feelings. Well how about a little respect for christians? However I have no problem with that book. If that book hurts someone's faith they are little short on brains.

The God Delusion isn't specifically anti-Christian. Anti-religion would be a much better phrase to use. The book posits that there almost certainly isn't a supernatural creator - or "god", if you prefer. Now the last I checked Jews, Muslims and Hindus, to name a few, also believe in a god or gods - it's not a belief that's limited to Christians. So pulling the rather old and very tiresome argument "what if it had been anti-Muslim" is a bit of an own goal in this case.

I highlighted "almost certainly" in the paragraph above, as people seem to miss this point. Whatever Dawkins own views are, the book doesn't go as far as to state there is definitely no god, just that there is probably no god.

I don't find it in the least bit odd that Sony put a sample chapter from a bestseller on some devices. I wouldn't claim that Sony believed in the lizard men if they put a sample chapter from a David Icke book on there (although I a) have no idea (and don't wish to know, either) if any of his stuff is available as ebooks, or b) know if he's ever been in the best sellers list).

But really it seems rather disingenuous to say that Sony are pursuing an anti-religious agenda by including this sample chapter on some devices. Generally (I say generally because I really don't know if this is the case for single-religion bookshops), bookshops don't endorse the views of every single author they stock (they'd be a pretty confused bunch of they did...). They don't even endorse the views of authors whose work appears in the little freebie samplers you sometimes get. Nor do the publishers neccesarily, for that matter (some smaller publishing houses might possibly, or small imprints of the larger ones).

Now it may just be because it's 3:45 here, and I've spent most of the day in a heavily smoky atmosphere - neither of which are conducive to clear headedness, but there seems to be a subtext in some of these "Sony shouldn't have done it" posts which seems to be suggesting that because it might offend some people it should maybe never have been published at all. Which is something I find rather frightening. I've waffled on long enough here, so I'll leave it at that for now, but I may come back to it when I'm less tired.

[Over]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

OK .... I'm going to rephrase what you are saying to make certain I am understanding you.

A scientific or atheistic view expresses something as a fact only if there is unbiased evidence that the thing is a fact. And the only reason for believing something is true is that unbiased evidence.

I believe true science is agnostic. It needs proof to believe in something, but it also needs proof to not believe in something.

Atheism is the negation of God. Is a faith in the non-existance of God. That's not science.

From here, it's useless to discuss God, because science doesn't have (yet) the tools to prove or negate God's existence. Just as until a certain time there was no way to prove that Earth rotates around the Sun. Science depends a lot on technology, and technology is always evolving opening new horizons. Right now, it doesn't have the tools to solve God's mystery. So it's agnostic.

[HarryT]

You might want to read the posts about 2 or 3 pages back, Over. That particular point was discussed at some length there.

[Patricia]

A J Ayer discusses this in Chapter 6 of "Language, Truth and Logic."

1. Theists believe the proposition, "God exists" is true.
Ayer claims that "God exists" is strictly meaningless because it cannot be verified.

2. Atheists believe that the proposition, "God does not exist" is true.
Ayer claims that this too is meaningless because it cannot be verified.

3. Agnostics believe that one of the following propositions is true, but aren't sure which:
Either "God exists"
or "God does not exist."
Ayer says that as both propositions are unverifiable, this is not a sensible position to adopt.

Hence he declines to desribe himself as either a theist, atheist or agnostic, and suggests that the whole debate is meaningless. Scientists study verifiable phenomena.

[pdurrant]

He would appear to be an ignostic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

It's amusing to see that those who do not believe in god(s) can split into almost as many sects as those who do.

Originally Posted by Patricia

A J Ayer discusses this in Chapter 6 of "Language, Truth and Logic."

1. Theists believe the proposition, "God exists" is true.
Ayer claims that "God exists" is strictly meaningless because it cannot be verified.

2. Atheists believe that the proposition, "God does not exist" is true.
Ayer claims that this too is meaningless because it cannot be verified.

3. Agnostics believe that one of the following propositions is true, but aren't sure which:
Either "God exists"
or "God does not exist."
Ayer says that as both propositions are unverifiable, this is not a sensible position to adopt.

Hence he declines to desribe himself as either a theist, atheist or agnostic, and suggests that the whole debate is meaningless. Scientists study verifiable phenomena.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Patricia

A J Ayer discusses this in Chapter 6 of "Language, Truth and Logic."

1. Theists believe the proposition, "God exists" is true.
Ayer claims that "God exists" is strictly meaningless because it cannot be verified.

Of course, a lot depends on your definition of God.

'God' as the creative force that brought the Universe into existence, is probably easier to believe in than 'God' that is going to provide us all with a performance-related afterlife.

I probably believe in the former; and probably don't believe in the latter.

[kesey]

42 works fine.

[desertgrandma]

"There are no atheists in a foxhole or before a test in school"

While the above sounds simplistic, I believe that what I mean to say is that these discussions are all well and good.

But, when you find yourself on your deathbed, or in imminent danger of losing your life, or a loved ones life, will you be able to keep yourselves from crying out to a God, or any diety/higher power to be spared? Will your agnostic/athiestic beliefs hold up?

Thats what it all boils down to folks, a sense of comfort derived from belief in whatever "higher power" you choose to believe in.

I'm not judging anyone here. We all have free will to believe as we will.

I just have a really hard time believing we are all just a bunch of ants milling around with no purpose.

Something, call it light vs dark, good vs evil, whatever, something exists.

But thats just my opinion.

[kesey]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

"But, when you find yourself on your deathbed, or in imminent danger of losing your life, or a loved ones life, will you be able to keep yourselves from crying out to a God, or any diety/higher power to be spared? Will your agnostic/athiestic beliefs hold up?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-recovery.html

Nurse suspended for offering to pray for elderly patient's recovery

[basschick]

if over 80% of the u.s. is religious, and a large percentage of those are christian, it appears to me that some christians aren't offended by that book or have at least read it - after all, it IS a best seller and for quite a long time.

i admit i only read some of this thread and maybe someone else made this point. if so, i apologize.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by kesey

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-recovery.html

Nurse suspended for offering to pray for elderly patient's recovery

shameful.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

'God' as the creative force that brought the Universe into existence, is probably easier to believe in than 'God' that is going to provide us all with a performance-related afterlife.

The afterlife a powerful alien can fix (nano machines and downloading for example). Bringing an universe into existence seems much harder.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

"There are no atheists in a foxhole or before a test in school"

While the above sounds simplistic, I believe that what I mean to say is that these discussions are all well and good.

But, when you find yourself on your deathbed, or in imminent danger of losing your life, or a loved ones life, will you be able to keep yourselves from crying out to a God, or any diety/higher power to be spared? Will your agnostic/athiestic beliefs hold up?

It seems that that this is religious propaganda. See for example:

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/...s-in-foxholes/

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/09/0...or-respect.htm

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

"There are no atheists in a foxhole or before a test in school"

While the above sounds simplistic, I believe that what I mean to say is that these discussions are all well and good.

But, when you find yourself on your deathbed, or in imminent danger of losing your life, or a loved ones life, will you be able to keep yourselves from crying out to a God, or any diety/higher power to be spared? Will your agnostic/athiestic beliefs hold up?

Thats what it all boils down to folks, a sense of comfort derived from belief in whatever "higher power" you choose to believe in.

I'm not judging anyone here. We all have free will to believe as we will.

I just have a really hard time believing we are all just a bunch of ants milling around with no purpose.

Something, call it light vs dark, good vs evil, whatever, something exists.

But thats just my opinion.

This is going to sound bad, but I've prayed to God during football games.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

This is going to sound bad, but I've prayed to God during football games.

You and your entire team and school.......