PDA

View Full Version : The god delusion by Richard Dawkins



Pages : [1] 2

Robot Jesus
16th September 07, 12:00 AM
I believe that this is a book everyone should read, it will only change the minds of those already very close to renouncing belief in the magic sky man, but it can serve as a primer in atheism. Something the religious person can look to, to see how the faithless think. If more people read this book atheists would not be the most reviled group in America.


Dawkins attempts to disprove god and to show religion to be a horrible thing. He doesn’t prove anything but makes a strong inductive case for both. A very good read.

If someone of faith would like to read it I would greatly appreciate their opinion. It took me about two weeks to read it in the mall book store on my lunch breaks, so I would say a week of dedicated reading for most people. And yes I know he is rather militant but I look forward to the day when I can both respect your beliefs and call them batshit insane at the same time.

bad credit
16th September 07, 12:51 AM
I saw Everything You Know About God Is Wrong the other day in Barnes and Noble. I'm gonna pick it up on payday.

My athiest friend has the Dawkins book, and I'm gonna borrow it, having recently lost my faith due to theological debates with clergy and seminary students. Fuck, trained religious leaders and a Godamn exorcist couldn't answer my questions.

WarPhalange
16th September 07, 01:14 AM
I had Jehova's Witnesses come to my door on Thursday. They couldn't answer my questions either (and we were both civil about it all). They said they would consider my questions or something, then come back (and I agreed that they should) and talk to me again. They said they've thought about the same questions and obviously had them answered since they still have their faith.

They gave me some stuff to read, but it was full of circular logic, i.e. "The Bible is true because God said so! God is real because the Bible says so!"

The funny thing is that I was reading the book titled something like "What does the Bible really teach?" on the bus on the way to work and the bus blew out a tire. Thanks, God!

John_Dillinger
16th September 07, 04:11 AM
Dawkins also narrates the audiobook, which is a great option for those who like to multitask. It's quite easily attainable via the inter-tubes. I reccomend it

Shawarma
16th September 07, 05:59 AM
I read it. Made some decent points but also descended into the hard-to-avoid antireligious dickery that staunch atheists often indulge in. I especially enjoy how the foreword of the book stated that it was not intended to insult the religious beliefs of anyone and then opening up the first chapter by saying that the Christian God was the most murderous, nasty and sickening fictional character of all time.

He should also really have avoided quoting various people from the intarwebs. Made him look less professional.

ICY
16th September 07, 06:21 AM
I had Jehova's Witnesses come to my door on Thursday. They couldn't answer my questions either (and we were both civil about it all). They said they would consider my questions or something, then come back (and I agreed that they should) and talk to me again. They said they've thought about the same questions and obviously had them answered since they still have their faith

Argh, dude...no. Didn't you realize? They've infected your house with a virus. This is worse than an insect infestation, because you just don't know WHEN they'll show up again, but rest assured they will.

Shawarma, about the Christian God...he's right, you know.

king of seals
16th September 07, 07:36 AM
If more people read this book atheists would not be the most reviled group in America.

O RLY?

I thought the average American citizen would rather deal with an atheist than a Muslim...

Arhetton
16th September 07, 10:07 AM
Things I liked about god delusion

- hypothesis that gullibility as a child is an evolutionary outcome
- argument that religion has no moral authority over actual moral and ethical philosophers & experts, and in most cases, just normal ordinary people (common sense).
- argument that religion has no scientific authority over the nature of the universe, and is at best guesswork (of course this one is obvious, and perhaps the only one people suspect would be in the book).

Hand in hand with the god delusion is 'the selfish gene' which dawkins says he should have called 'the selfish replicator' - because he goes on to explain how ideas and culture propagate from person to person just like sexual reproduction (except through conversation, literature and film) and how ideas/culture also conform to selection patterns. He called these ideas/culture that obey selection 'memes'. Religion, is a meme, a 'selfish replicator' that exists in the mind.

There may be a god, but we certainly know nothing about him, and I'm sure every religious account is entirely false. There may be a god out there, but the god in your own head is your personal 'santa claus', a 'tooth fairy', a complete fantasy.

I think if you read the god delusion with the understanding of memes then the god delusion is much more relevant and powerful.

I consumed this book in about 3 days, I need to re-read it again though.

Sometimes dawkins makes me a little uncomfortable, anyone who has seen that south park episode 'go god go' (part I & II) knows what I am talking about. If you haven't seen it you can watch it free here:

http://allsp.com/

season ten

Jacob Bronowski explained it wonderfully though - when we are certain that we have absolute knowledge that cannot be tested, it leads to arrogance (and sometimes, wrongdoing).

8mIfatdNqBA

WarPhalange
16th September 07, 11:43 AM
Argh, dude...no. Didn't you realize? They've infected your house with a virus. This is worse than an insect infestation, because you just don't know WHEN they'll show up again, but rest assured they will.

Yeah, I told them to. It will be ROFLcakes when they try to convert me and every time I have more and more questions they can't answer. One of the things in the booklet they gave me is that everything in the Bible is scientifically accurate.

If the Intarwebs have taught me anything is that they will get mad, call me a fag, then leave never to be heard from again. Maybe TP my house once in a while.

ironlurker
16th September 07, 01:38 PM
There may be a god, but we certainly know nothing about him, and I'm sure every religious account is entirely false. There may be a god out there, but the god in your own head is your personal 'santa claus', a 'tooth fairy', a complete fantasy.
Ibn Arabi (aka Doctor Maximus) said something almost identical 800 years ago.


Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn `Arabi
And The Diversity of Beliefs


No individual can escape having a belief (meaning: personal, individual belief: i`tiqâd) concerning his Lord. Through it he resorts to Him and seeks Him (see Quran: "Thy Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him." (17:23). When the Real discloses Himself to him in his belief (personal, individual belief i`tiqâd), he recognizes and acknowledges Him. But if He discloses Himself to him in other than his belief, he denies Him and seeks refuge from Him, thus displaying discourtesy toward Him in the actual situation, though he himself supposes that he has shown courtesy.

No believer believes in any God other than what he has made in himself, for the God of beliefs is made. The believers see nothing but themselves and what they have made within themselves. So consider: The levels of mankind in knowledge of God correspond exactly to their levels in vision of Him on the Day of Resurrection. I have told you the cause which brings this about.

Beware of becoming delimited (muqayyad) by a specific knotting (personal belief: i`tiqâd) and disbelieving in everything else, lest great good escapes you http://livingislam-islamictradition.blogspot.com/2005/12/shaykh-muhyi-al-din-ibn-arabi-and.html

It certainly is impossible for "you" to know anything about God

Zub-Zub
16th September 07, 02:47 PM
..... the Christian God was the most murderous, nasty and sickening fictional character of all time.


Yeah, and this "Allah" character is such a swell guy in comparison.......

WarPhalange
16th September 07, 02:56 PM
lol did you get offended?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
16th September 07, 03:07 PM
Yeah, and this "Allah" character is such a swell guy in comparison.......

HITLER WAS THE MOST MURDEROUS, NASTY, AND SICKENING LEADER OF ALL TIME

YEAH, AND THIS "ADOLF" CHARACTER IS SUCH A SWELL GUY IN COMPARISON

Shawarma
16th September 07, 03:47 PM
Yeah, and this "Allah" character is such a swell guy in comparison.......
The fuck? Dawkins isn't even vaguely Muslim. What's your point?

WarPhalange
16th September 07, 03:51 PM
HITLER WAS THE MOST MURDEROUS, NASTY, AND SICKENING LEADER OF ALL TIME

YEAH, AND THIS "ADOLF" CHARACTER IS SUCH A SWELL GUY IN COMPARISON

Nah, it's more like saying Hitler of 1942 was the worst person ever, and Hitler of 1944 was a swell guy in comparison.

polishillusion
16th September 07, 03:53 PM
guys..... remember.....

God loves you. He's just not in love with you.

Zub-Zub
16th September 07, 07:53 PM
The fuck? Dawkins isn't even vaguely Muslim. What's your point?



My point is, "t3h Christ14an" god isn't the only one that could be slapped with that character sketch.

Zub-Zub
16th September 07, 08:25 PM
HITLER WAS THE MOST MURDEROUS, NASTY, AND SICKENING LEADER OF ALL TIME

YEAH, AND THIS "ADOLF" CHARACTER IS SUCH A SWELL GUY IN COMPARISON


LOL touche

AAAhmed46
16th September 07, 10:18 PM
Atheists are NOT the most reviled group. I don't know why some athiests think that.

The strongest reaction i heard of athiesm is really 'okay'.

Goldenmane
16th September 07, 10:59 PM
Yeah, I told them to. It will be ROFLcakes when they try to convert me and every time I have more and more questions they can't answer. One of the things in the booklet they gave me is that everything in the Bible is scientifically accurate.

If the Intarwebs have taught me anything is that they will get mad, call me a fag, then leave never to be heard from again. Maybe TP my house once in a while.

A friend of mine and I had pet Mormons once. They came around to his place every Thursday morning for about 6 weeks for "bible study" to try to convert him. Didn't work, for several reasons. One of which was that I had been raised in the Protestant church, and being an inquisitive little fucker I'd done an awful lot of research into this whole "religion" and "supernatural" shite. I'd almost certainly studied more about theology of all types than these poor deluded twits ever had. Had just recently dropped my Physics degree in uni, too, so I wasn't exactly backwards on the science. My mate didn't have my background, but he was pretty smart and he knew his logic and his science (studied as an engineer, iirc). So together, we politely talked circles around our dear bicycling-in-suits nutjobs.

Although, probably the best week was when we got a well-endowed female friend who had a penchant for corsets and very low cut tops to come around and join in the "bible study". I bet those boys went and prayed for forgiveness for carnal thoughts that night... heh.

Lu Tze
16th September 07, 11:19 PM
My point is, "t3h Christ14an" god isn't the only one that could be slapped with that character sketch.And your point is completely irrelevant.

WarPhalange
17th September 07, 12:34 AM
Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda blah blah blah Had just recently dropped my Physics degree in uni, too,

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ironlurker
17th September 07, 12:43 AM
I'd almost certainly studied more about theology of all types than these poor deluded twits ever had.
Poor deluded twits reproduce like crazy. Which is why we use them to bomb other deluded twits :911flag:

DAYoung
17th September 07, 12:51 AM
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know.

It's like millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

knutorious
17th September 07, 01:55 AM
Any thoughts on the Book of J by Harold Bloom?

I'm in a RELigion 300 lv course, and so far the msg has been, "don't mind God so much. Use religion to achieve spirituality and be comfortable in your own skin. If a religion doesn't like you, then fuck it."

Arhetton
17th September 07, 06:08 AM
Ironlurker were you agreeing with me or did you have a point you want to discuss?

*edit*

Or just letting me know something interesting from antiquity? :)

Zub-Zub
17th September 07, 01:04 PM
And your point is completely irrelevant.

Yeah.......So.....What's your point?

Lu Tze
17th September 07, 02:12 PM
That your point isn't relevant, obviously...

ironlurker
17th September 07, 02:56 PM
Ironlurker were you agreeing with me or did you have a point you want to discuss?

*edit*

Or just letting me know something interesting from antiquity? :)
All three, basically, although my car would be a better example of antiquity.

If you argue for the transcendence of God, you have to explain how it is possible to know anything about Him, from mundanities like how to brush your teeth to issues such as who has t3h r34l Islam/Judaism/Christianity. There's a book titled "Al-Ghazali's Unique Unknowable God", for example.

Most mainstream forms of monotheistic faith find their answer in revelation- we can know nothing about God except what He has told us, in the Bible, Quran, etc. The issue then becomes how can we believe the revelation? The response usually rests upon the accuracy of the revealed text (not a word in the Quran/Bible has changed, etc., or no important part etc.) and the character and historicity of the messenger in question, as well as such things as miracle and prophecy as proofs of supernatural intervention. Obviously, these can be analyzed and dissected ad infinitum, so it's not an easy resolution of the issue.

Moreover, why can't God change His mind, or tell different things to different people? From the standpoint of a revealed religion, He won't, because either he has sworn he won't (Judaism) or said that this message is the last one (Islam). However, this brings us back to the factors above.

So then we have revelation as a sort of "best" answer to agnosticism on the part of mainstream monothesitic religions. The other alternative is gnosticism (small g), that things may be learned or experienced from God. However, -and this is the part about "you" being unable to know God- most such traditions argue that there is an negation of the personality, the mind, even the very self involved in such a process. This can be the result of a pantheistic or monistic attitude (ie, "you" can't know God for the same reason you can't touch your right elbow with your right hand) or the overwhelming nature of the contact in monotheistic schemes- Paul's being unable to speak the words he heard in the heavens, the fnaa wa-baqaa (basically, annihilation of the individual personality in God's glory) in Sufism.

Buddha's answer to Malunkyaputta concerning God, if I remember correctly was more or less "just do it" with his simile of the man shot by a poisoned arrow who wants to know who made it, their name, etc. before it is removed. In other words, most such views are useless to removing the causes of suffering, which is what he was concerned with. I think such a view is called "nontheism".

Ramana Maharshi said you could believe in God and worship Him or inquire into the self, the worshipper, the one who wants to know who God is, or who doesn't care or want to know, etc. I don't think the second alternative necessarily is limited or even requires metaphysics or meditation, etc., but such things as philosophy, psychology, and so on. But he said, do either- don't just make the mistake of being godless and brainless.

Zub-Zub
17th September 07, 04:21 PM
That your point isn't relevant, obviously...


Wrong answer. I'll ask you again. What is your point?

Lu Tze
17th September 07, 04:58 PM
It's not the wrong answer, it's my fucking point, I'm the one who gets to decide what it is by virtue of me typing it fucking out.

Now are you going to address Dawkins at all, or are you going to continue to act all butt hurt because he quite rightly pointed out that god is a shitbag?

Zub-Zub
17th September 07, 05:19 PM
It's not the wrong answer, it's my fucking point, I'm the one who gets to decide what it is by virtue of me typing it fucking out.

Now are you going to address Dawkins at all, or are you going to continue to act all butt hurt because he quite rightly pointed out that god is a shitbag?


You still aren't getting me. What is your POINT?

Lu Tze
17th September 07, 07:38 PM
You still aren't getting me.Perhaps because you're being deliberately obtuse? What's your point? What information are you trying to glean, above and beyond what I've already told you, from this retarded line of questioning?

Zub-Zub
17th September 07, 08:09 PM
Perhaps because you're being deliberately obtuse? What's your point? What information are you trying to glean, above and beyond what I've already told you, from this retarded line of questioning?



I'm trying to glean what your point is. So..........................































































































WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Cullion
18th September 07, 02:20 AM
Dawkins is deluded if he thinks christianity has caused more innocent* deaths than atheistic socialism.

*Witches and vampires don't count.

nihilist
18th September 07, 02:35 AM
No one kills in the name of athiesm.

Cullion
18th September 07, 05:06 AM
No one kills in the name of athiesm.

They sorta do. Stalin killed a lot of people. More than Hitler. He was an atheist. He sent clergy to death and to the gulag. Marxism incorporates a hatred of religion. Same thing happened under Mao.

Besides, for all the fairy-tail superstition, and the bigots who use a religion to justify violence, religions have done some great good. Great works of charity and art have been inspired by religion.

It may be a deluded comfort, but a lot of people have been comforted and supported by their religion in times of great distress. I'm not religious personally, but if I had to choose between Dawkins and the local catholic priest to comfort a grandmother whose husband has just passed on, I'm sticking with Father O'Rourke.

Besides, the Spanish inquisition was necessary. You let a witch beguile you with a sob-story one day, and you're dealing with a full-scale zombie outbreak the next.

You bleeding hearts are so irresponsible.

king of seals
18th September 07, 05:07 AM
They sorta do. Stalin killed a lot of people. More than Hitler. He was an atheist.

So a person that is atheist and kills people is automatically a person that kills in the name of atheism?

I recall killings in the name of "anti-Christianity" or "anti-|insert religion here|" as part of discrimination or systematic repression of cults.

I also recall atheists being killed just because of their faithlessness.

Cullion
18th September 07, 05:15 AM
So a person that is atheist and kills people is automatically a person that kills in the name of atheism?

No, not necessarily, but it sorta shores up the point that dropping religious belief doesn't seem to do much to prevent people engaging in trying to cleanse the world with fire and steel.

king of seals
18th September 07, 05:20 AM
dropping religious belief doesn't seem to do much to prevent people engaging in trying to cleanse the world with fire and steel.

Religion is not the only one reason to do it, apparently.

But without religion there's one less reason, since there cannot be religious intolerance between atheists.

Cullion
18th September 07, 05:37 AM
Religion is not the only one reason to do it, apparently.

But without religion there's one less reason, since there cannot be religious intolerance between atheists.

'The one less reason' argument doesn't seem to hold up on historical evidence.
You cannot make people nicer by refusing to allow them to believe myths.

king of seals
18th September 07, 07:14 AM
'The one less reason' argument doesn't seem to hold up on historical evidence.

Can you please point me in the direction of a religion war between atheists?


You cannot make people nicer by refusing to allow them to believe myths.

Not "nicer", dammit! :ninjafigh

There are many reasons a person may happen to hate and/or desire the killing of another.

One of these is religion.

Without religion, people would stop with the religious intolerance, fanatism, etc., and find some other reason (that may even happen to make a minimal amount of sense).

So with religion, we have X reasons. Without it, we have X-1.

Cullion
18th September 07, 07:18 AM
Can you please point me in the direction of a religion war between atheists?

My point is that not warring over religion doesn't seem to prevent war to any degree, and I've already given examples of atheists warring on the religious.



Without religion, people would stop with the religious intolerance, fanatism, etc., and find some other reason (that may even happen to make a minimal amount of sense).

No, they just carry on being fanatical and intolerant about something else.

DAYoung
18th September 07, 07:19 AM
Quick definitional housekeeping.

What is religion?

Cullion
18th September 07, 07:31 AM
A system of ritual, spirituality and ethics derived from and justified by a metaphysical framework, commonly including 'supernatural' elements which run counter to the observations and theoretical frameworks of the natural sciences.

DAYoung
18th September 07, 07:42 AM
Fine with me, at a glance.

Any dissenters?

Arhetton
18th September 07, 11:09 AM
Actually cullion Dawkins makes all of your points in his book.

And hitler was a christian.

And stalin deliberately mobilized the russian orthodox church during wartime because he knew it served a useful role in the war period (nationalism + strongly held convictions etc).

And stalin, despite being a total douche, defeated hitler. Not the allies.

So athiesm 1, christianity -1

The whole 'hitler/stalin/mao' line is a pretty common point that gets trotted out about 'atheism', and I don't remember what the god delusion says but I'm pretty sure it addresses this subject. I'll go look it up.

Cullion
18th September 07, 11:19 AM
Actually cullion Dawkins makes all of your points in his book.

And hitler was a christian.

Hitler was raised catholic but systematically stamped on the catholic church, the Lutherans, freemasons and of course, Judaism. He also didn't seem to care too much about his SS officers engaging in weird organised recreations of Nordic pagan ritual. Besides, Stalin killed more people, and he was an atheist.




And stalin deliberately mobilized the russian orthodox church during wartime because he knew it served a useful role in the war period (nationalism + strongly held convictions etc).

And stalin, despite being a total douche, defeated hitler. Not the allies.

Is your point that Stalin, an atheist who killed more people than Hitler (who if he had a religion, then it seemed to be a nutty form of ancestor worship) defeated Hitler by mobilising Christian sentiment, and then dropping it to carry on killing more of his people when he didn't need them any more ?

Maybe not, but it is my point.



The whole 'hitler/stalin/mao' line is a pretty common point that gets trotted out about 'atheism', and I don't remember what the god delusion says but I'm pretty sure it addresses this subject. I'll go look it up.

Cool.

Cullion
18th September 07, 11:23 AM
Sorry, but Dawkins just seems to me to be extrapolating from 'the Bible says a lot of things that honest observation and critical reason show to be untrue' to 'believing in those fairy tales is on balance likely to lead you into doing evil'.

I don't buy it. I don't think it's the history picture reveals. Unless you're a witch.

Arhetton
18th September 07, 11:31 AM
No, the argument is that religion teaches people to believe things based on faith, to believe things that they have no evidence for or reason to believe, and that by encouraging faith, sometimes over rational thought, is very dangerous to the scientific tradition.

Theres a whole chapter of the book devoted to explaining why he thinks there is a problem, a 'dark side' to religion.

Arhetton
18th September 07, 11:34 AM
And I was pointing out that stalin understood that religious sentiment can be used to generate approval for a war.

nihilist
18th September 07, 11:39 AM
The argument is that religion teaches people that it's OK to murder on the name of a myth.

To me and most clear thinking individuals that is dangerously bigoted insanity.

nihilist
18th September 07, 11:49 AM
Sorry, but Dawkins just seems to me to be extrapolating from 'the Bible says a lot of things that honest observation and critical reason show to be untrue' to 'believing in those fairy tales is on balance likely to lead you into doing evil'.

I don't buy it. I don't think it's the history picture reveals. Unless you're a witch.

History is chock full of religious nutcases en masse torturing, killing, burning books, abridging freedoms and generally trying to control the next person.

Any organization that denies scientific fact, advocates slaughtering infidels, claims devine right to real estate, treating women like animals, etc.etc. ad nauseum should be considered extremely dangerous. Unless you're a retard.

Cullion
18th September 07, 12:16 PM
The argument is that religion teaches people that it's OK to murder on the name of a myth.

Christianity as expressed in the alleged words of Christ in the New Testament doesn't teach that, neither does Buddhism. Jainism doesn't even allow it's devotees to kill insects.



To me and most clear thinking individuals that is dangerously bigoted insanity.

Atheism teaches that there will be no final reckoning of somebody's acts in this life, as long as they're smart enough to get away with whatever they do. Sadly, it's almost certainly true. It certainly acts as no check on Atheists committing murder.

Cullion
18th September 07, 12:24 PM
History is chock full of religious nutcases en masse torturing, killing, burning books, abridging freedoms and generally trying to control the next person.

History is also full of Atheists doing that. Re: The French Revolution, the history of Communism.

History is also chock full of religious people building hospitals, feeding and clothing the poor and creating incredible works of art.

Mother Theresa & Leonardo Da Vinci > Christopher Hitchens and Mao.



Any organization that denies scientific fact, advocates slaughtering infidels, claims devine right to real estate, treating women like animals, etc.etc. ad nauseum should be considered extremely dangerous. Unless you're a retard.

Wait, are you arguing against certain sects of Islam here, or religions in general ? Most religions don't fit all of those categories.

If all religions are culpable for the actions of some muslims, than all atheists share the blame with Stalin and Mao.

After all, the 20th century saw the largest scale mechanised killing of any time in human history, and it was mostly conducted by Atheists.

Yes, it's a ridiculous point to lump you in with the architects of the soviet Gulags. But that's exactly what you're doing when you put some kindly old minister who conducts christenings and Mother Theresa with Torquemada and the crazier Ayatollah's of recent history.

Cullion
18th September 07, 12:25 PM
You do realise that I'm a non-believer BTW, don't you ?

nihilist
18th September 07, 12:34 PM
No because you use the rationale of a religious idiot.

Cullion
18th September 07, 12:35 PM
My points stand.

Heathen.

nihilist
18th September 07, 12:54 PM
My points stand.

Heathen.
Actually your points fall like an 80 yr old penis.

Irrational belief in a superbeing who advocates killing is not the same as a lack of such belief.

that is the point that you are too obtuse to get or too stubborn to admit.

nihilist
18th September 07, 12:59 PM
Idiots love to point out how many people Stalin the "athiest" killed.

Fact is he had irrational religious beliefs.

Cullion
18th September 07, 01:11 PM
Actually your points fall like an 80 yr old penis.

Irrational belief in a superbeing who advocates killing is not the same as a lack of such belief.

that is the point that you are too obtuse to get or too stubborn to admit.

I didn't say it was the same. I'm just pointing out that believing in fairy-tales doesn't automatically predispose the believer to be crueller to their fellow man than the hard-headed materialist.

Cullion
18th September 07, 01:16 PM
Idiots love to point out how many people Stalin the "athiest" killed.

That's because he killed so many.
Idiots love to talk about the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and Osama Bin Laden and infer from that that religious belief is the major source of human mass-violence when there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it isn't.


Fact is he had irrational religious beliefs.

Irrational beliefs, sure, he was a communist. But religious ? Not to my knowledge. Spill the beans.

Refusing to believe in a supernaturally/mythologically derived framework for ethical conduct, whilst rational, has not shown any sign of making people more compassionate and less violent.

nihilist
18th September 07, 01:25 PM
I didn't say it was the same. I'm just pointing out that believing in fairy-tales doesn't automatically predispose the believer to be crueller to their fellow man than the hard-headed materialist.

Question: Is it easier to rationalize a hateful act if there is a divine mandate?

Answer: absolutely.

Does it give motivation? without question.

It can also be used for positive goals. this I know.

Cullion
18th September 07, 01:27 PM
Question: Is it easier to rationalize a hateful act if there is a divine mandate?

Answer: absolutely.

Does it give motivation? without question.

No easier than it is when you know that there's no afterlife so the only thing that matters is getting away with it. You're also ignoring the religions which do not provide this mandate in their scriptures.


It can also be used for positive goals. this I know.

Well given that you know how much killing has been done by atheists, why are you so worried about the effect of religion ?

nihilist
18th September 07, 01:41 PM
That's because he killed so many.
Idiots love to talk about the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and Osama Bin Laden and infer from that that religious belief is the major source of human mass-violence when there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it isn't.



Irrational beliefs, sure, he was a communist. But religious ? Not to my knowledge. Spill the beans.


Stalin was raised to be religious. He also believed himself to be the reincarnated soul of Timur Lenk.

This tells me two things
One that he is not sane and two he is not and could never be a proper athiest.



Refusing to believe in a supernaturally/mythologically derived framework for ethical conduct, whilst rational, has not shown any sign of making people more compassionate and less violent.

You are looking at it backward.

take two people and raise one in iraq and one in sweden.

Tell me who will be more violent.
Just take a wild guess.

nihilist
18th September 07, 01:44 PM
No easier than it is when you know that there's no afterlife so the only thing that matters is getting away with it. You're also ignoring the religions which do not provide this mandate in their scriptures.
I am not talking about those religions and you know it.




Well given that you know how much killing has been done by atheists, why are you so worried about the effect of religion ?
I am not worried about being blown up by athiest extremists. WHY?

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FUCKING HAPPEN.

nihilist
18th September 07, 01:47 PM
No easier than it is when you know that there's no afterlife so the only thing that matters is getting away with it.

^ bullshit^

nihilist
18th September 07, 01:58 PM
Cmon, with 85% athiests you'd think Sweden would be a hotbed of hatred and violence.

LOL.

king of seals
18th September 07, 02:59 PM
Cullion doesn't get it.

One kills in the name of his or her religion or deity because he or she believes that the killing is going to provide, say, some form of spiritual improvement or just because he or she blindly obeys someone.

You do not kill in the name of a faith, in fact, a proper atheist will never kill in the name of "insert religion here" or "insert deity here" because he or she believes in none. Atheism, by its very definition, is the absence of those.

Also, a religious person may have motives to kill other than religion.

To state that "atheists kill therefore atheist kills in the name of atheism" is plain fucking retarded. Period.

If a Christian person kills your mother because your favourite football team beat his, is he or she automatically killing in the name of God?

Atheists do kill, but for motives other than faith, for they have no faith to begin with.

DAYoung
18th September 07, 04:32 PM
This seems to be an argument about causaility (which reminds me of a very similar argument I had with Reese/THX years ago).

There is no necessary relation between evil and atheism/theism. For this reason, if someone wants to disparage religion on the grounds that it causes evil, you can point to many counter-examples: Mother Theresa, Christ, . And this game can continue for quite some time.

But the criterion for atheism or theism isn't consequentialist, i.e. whether or not it [I]necessarily causes certain effects. The criterion is whether or not it gives a clear and robust picture of the cosmos, and affords a reliable basis for thinking about what we are, what the world is, and what to do.

Since the advent of science and modern philosophy, religion hasn't done well in this regard, since it's grounded in a metaphysical system that is vague, descriptively incorrect, and clumsy.

Ethics and politics are another matter, of course, but they're subject to the same criteria for analysis: they don't follow necessarily from any portrait of nature. So you might as well start with what's true, and then take responsibility for figuring out how to live in the midst of it.

Cullion
18th September 07, 04:56 PM
Dr. Young keeps fucking with me on that 'saying more with less' thing I picked him up on in another thread.

For logistical reasons I'm going to breeze through some points in an apparently unreasonable way.

Point 1, simple game theory ought to suggest that brainwashing people into believing in a final, post-physical reckoning ought to predispose them to behave in a manner consistent to grabbing that ring. You really think that a people who generally believe there will be no final punishment if they act in a consistently immoral manner as long as they get away with it won't act in a less moral way?

Naive. So naive.

Point 2. You're all willfully ignoring empirical evidence about death tolls that go against the 'no religion = less killing' hypothesis.

Point 3. So what if Stalin was raised religious ? So was Dawkins..

Point 4. Yes, people who were atheist killed in the name of their beliefs too. Rigid faith in the universality of the natural sciences doesn't spring you free from irrationality.

I'm posting from a mobile device, so expect more incoming, so much more.

AAAhmed46
18th September 07, 06:55 PM
Uzbekistan, people are killed for having religious looking beards.

Anyone seen to be very religious is often followed, and some often disappear from their homes.

Anyone shown to have congregations in their homes other then state designated mosques are jailed or never heard from again.

Uzbekistan is one of the last communist countries around, and is especially known for pushing secularism.


In responce, Uzbek immigrants are like super religious.


Does this contribute anything in the religion is evil vs religion is not evil arguement?

No not really.

But it does prove that, if you create policy, or even worse, activily try and stamp out religion forcefully....you probably won't get rid of 'insert religion'.

Thats why, at teh fall of the cold war, so many muslim countries ended up becoming islamic states.

Religiion in those areas under soviet rule was stifled.

Like a little kid denied cookies, they craved more cookies(religion)

Thus such overboard bullshit fanaticism.



By trying to activily screw religion over, the soviets ended up creating a large and (atleast today) considerably pushy group of fanatics.



So in future legislation, should religion be stifled by the state? I think not, so far we've seen it have the opposite result/



Get a bible thumper, and bust his car each time he acts religious. He will become resentful of you, and hand this resentment down to his children by teaching them this resentment.

This happened in the middle east under the commies.










BELIEVE IT OR NOT:

But if you want to wipe our religion, simply jack up hollywood, novels. literature.

That will TRULY wipe our religion.

Cullion
18th September 07, 07:00 PM
Cullion doesn't get it.

No, you don't get it.



One kills in the name of his or her religion or deity because he or she believes that the killing is going to provide, say, some form of spiritual improvement or just because he or she blindly obeys someone.

You do not kill in the name of a faith, in fact, a proper atheist will never kill in the name of "insert religion here" or "insert deity here" because he or she believes in none. Atheism, by its very definition, is the absence of those.

No, Atheism is the absence of theism. It is not the absence of irrational thinking. That's why simple empirical study of history shows that atheists do a whole lot of killing.



To state that "atheists kill therefore atheist kills in the name of atheism" is plain fucking retarded. Period.

It's just as retarded to claim that just because one group drags a name to kill under from their super-ego and another just fucking does it because they want to anyway that the former group are more likely to kill than the latter. History doesn't support this.



Atheists do kill, but for motives other than faith, for they have no faith to begin with.

Yes, non-religious people are full of faith. They accept all kinds of things on faith. It is necessary to the human condition.

AAAhmed46
18th September 07, 07:04 PM
During queen Isabella's and mr.Prince, whent he portugese and spanish started the modern slave trade.........

It was the clergy and often men of religion that greatly spoke out about the treatment of the 'indians' from south america. It was the noble men and the queen and prince, people of secular institutions that pushed for it (because cheap labour is profitable)


Does this apply for the modern age? Proabably not, but it shows that historically,
athiests also have been known to do horrible shit.
Coudl these noble men have believed in god? probably.

Was Isabella religious? Yes she was. Hell she helped start the inquesition.

But was the slave trade MOTIVATED by religion? No it was not, no one says "In the name of Christ, i will by the black fool!" It's for cheap ass labour.

Arhetton
18th September 07, 08:20 PM
Cullion you're claiming that atheists don't have reasons to have morals, which is just ridiculous


Atheism teaches that there will be no final reckoning of somebody's acts in this life, as long as they're smart enough to get away with whatever they do. Sadly, it's almost certainly true. It certainly acts as no check on Atheists committing murder.

Athiesm doesn't 'teach' anything. What it encourages is skepticism, reason and doubt over faith. It just so happens that those very things frown upon religion in its varied forms and its claims.

Evolution produces communities all over the place (apes, lions, buffalo). Humans are hard wired for social interaction, even though there are a few free riders.

There is morality outside of religion. I know alot of religious people who think athiests are for nihilism. Thats assuming that athiests do not live for a purpose.

Ever heard of the law? Thats a pretty substantial check on someones boner induced murdering spree. The law is created by... people. Not god. Social institutions have shown they can insulate to an extent against mans worst instincts.

Teaching someone that there is an afterlife 'much better' than this current life - I think that encourages people to be mediocre because they will never consider this life to be the most important thing they ever do. One chance, one shot. Thats very valuable to me. It underscores our responsibility to live life to its full potential.


I didn't say it was the same. I'm just pointing out that believing in fairy-tales doesn't automatically predispose the believer to be crueller to their fellow man than the hard-headed materialist.

No it doesn't thats true. Would you agree with the following two things
1)most religious people moderate their beliefs away from literal interpretation of the religious texts
2) It does pave the way for fanatics.

UY-ZrwFwLQg

http://imprintmagazine.org/blogs/aaron/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/bushcross.jpg

Lu Tze
19th September 07, 01:44 AM
During queen Isabella's and mr.Prince, whent he portugese and spanish started the modern slave trade.........

It was the clergy and often men of religion that greatly spoke out about the treatment of the 'indians' from south america. It was the noble men and the queen and prince, people of secular institutions that pushed for it (because cheap labour is profitable)Okay, I really really don't want to get into this thread, but do not fucking argue that the monarchy of Spain during that time was a secular institution. Ever hear of "divine right of kings"? The aristocracy believed that they were apointed to rule by god, they were not secular in any sense.


but it shows that historically,
athiests also have been known to do horrible shit.
Coudl these noble men have believed in god? probably.IF THEY BELIEVED IN GOD THEY WEREN'T ATHIESTS! And they did, rest assured. It was god who gave them their power remember.


Was Isabella religious? Yes she was. Hell she helped start the inquesition.

But was the slave trade MOTIVATED by religion? No it was not, no one says "In the name of Christ, i will by the black fool!" It's for cheap ass labour.I don't believe the slave trade was motivated by religion either, it's always been primarily an economic practice. However, religion has sometimes been used to excuse and justify slavery. If for example, you believe that there's a certain heirachy inherent in god's creation (that old divine right again...), and those Africans just happen to be stuck right at the bottom of it, well it's god's will innit...

And the slave trade stretches much further and deeper than the Europe. Arabs were notorious slavers (and there are indications that the practice hasn't alltogether been wiped out, just moved underground).

DAYoung
19th September 07, 01:57 AM
Cullion has a point. And historically, it's a good one.

It suggests instances when the removal of religious fetters left modern gentlemen without a moral compass. They were self-professed atheists, which also meant they were nihilists - theirs was a material, mechanical world, without any normative guidelines (and none were necessary).

Now, was this a necessary outgrowth of atheism? No.

Are all instances of atheism nihilistic? No.

Is Cullion making these two claims? I doubt it.

But they do suggest that, in some case, the movement from the divine eschatology to a secular philosophy led to a kind of immature myopia.

Cullion
19th September 07, 03:38 AM
Are all instances of atheism nihilistic? No.

Exactly. My point is that accusing all religious people of suffering from the same fanaticism and willingness to selectively pick parts of scripture which caused the crusades is just as stupid and unfounded as accusing all Atheists of being as nutty as Stalin.

Cullion
19th September 07, 03:43 AM
Cullion you're claiming that atheists don't have reasons to have morals, which is just ridiculous

Not quite. Read my reply above.



Ever heard of the law? Thats a pretty substantial check on someones boner induced murdering spree. The law is created by... people. Not god. Social institutions have shown they can insulate to an extent against mans worst instincts.

Most of those laws and social institutions were created, if not currently sustained, by men of religious faith.



Teaching someone that there is an afterlife 'much better' than this current life - I think that encourages people to be mediocre because they will never consider this life to be the most important thing they ever do. One chance, one shot. Thats very valuable to me. It underscores our responsibility to live life to its full potential.

Good for you. The message some people take from it is 'all I need to do is to be smart enough to get away with it, and I can do what I want'.



No it doesn't thats true. Would you agree with the following two things
1)most religious people moderate their beliefs away from literal interpretation of the religious texts

Absolutely.


2) It does pave the way for fanatics.

I think people are fanatically aggressive for other reasons, and then they latch on to scripture to justify it. I don't believe this aggression is less prevalent in atheistic societies and therefore I don't see religion as the root cause.

king of seals
19th September 07, 03:47 AM
But you're calling atheist nihilists (key words in bold):


Atheism teaches that there will be no final reckoning of somebody's acts in this life, as long as they're smart enough to get away with whatever they do.

and fail to discern "religion war" from "non-religion war."

In case you were wondering, atheism teaches that there is no afterlife, while the "smart enough" and "get away with" is mindwanking of yours.

Now, where's the historical evidence of a religion war between groups of atheists? (Hint: there cannot be one.)

Cullion
19th September 07, 03:57 AM
But you're calling atheist nihilsts (key words in bold):



and fail to discern "religion war" from "non-religion war."

In case you were wondering, atheism teaches that there is no afterlife, while the "smart enough" and "get away with" is mindwanking of yours.

Kos: I'm an atheist. I know exactly what it is. I also understand the game theory of tricking some simpler souls with mythical rewards and punishments into follow a prescriptive moral code. Religion can perform that role pretty well.



Now, where's the historical evidence of a religion war between groups of atheists? (Hint: there cannot be one.)

Why do you care so much about whether a war is said to be over religion when there's no evidence that taking away religion decreases the amount of war ?

You're logic is circular.

People fight over religion (true)

People fight without religion (true)

Without religion people aren't fighting over religion (true)

The correct conclusion from this is that fighting is bad, not that religion is bad.

king of seals
19th September 07, 04:08 AM
Kos: I'm an atheist.

It doesn't prevent you from calling atheists nihilist.


Why do you care so much about whether a war is said to be over religion

Ask any religious zealot. He does care... :israel7va


when there's no evidence that taking away religion decreases the amount of war ?

For wars in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

In the very specific case of religion wars, I don't need all that evidence.


You're logic is circular.

Example: No Islam -> No usage of the Islamic faith for terrorism propaganda purposes. How is that circular? :israel7va


People fight over religion (true)

People fight without religion (true)

Without religion people aren't fighting over religion (true)

The correct conclusion from this is that fighting is bad, not that religion is bad.

What about "religion can be bad"? :israel7va

Cullion
19th September 07, 04:22 AM
It doesn't prevent you from calling atheists nihilist.

If you read my posts carefully, you'd see that I didn't. I pointed out that accusing religion of leading to fanatical violence was as stupid as accusing atheism of always leading to nihilism.



In the very specific case of religion wars, I don't need all that evidence.

You do if you're making comparisons.



Example: No Islam -> No usage of the Islamic faith for terrorism propaganda purposes. How is that circular?

Because you're inferring an extra step. You're assuming

No usage of the Islamic faith to justify terrorism -> less terrorism/war.

Study of atheistic societies does not support this.



What about "religion can be bad"? :israel7va

Of course it can, so can atheism. Neither atheism nor religion are the cause of the violence.

DAYoung
19th September 07, 05:08 AM
For the love of Go-...

Wait. Bad example.

For the love of all that's wonderful.

THE CRUCIAL PROBLEM WITH RELIGION ISN'T THAT IT'S DANGEROUS - IT'S THAT IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE, AND THAT ITS FALSITY IS UNNECESSARY FOR HUMAN FLOURISHING.

DAYoung
19th September 07, 05:10 AM
By the way, do you think organised religion has a monopoly on unverifiable or uncritical claims?

It doesn't.

Most people have unjustified and uncritically-accepted principles at the foundation of their words and deeds, and will defend them well past the point of rational discourse.

The only difference is this: the Church has made this into a virtue called 'faith'. But many self-professed atheists and agnostics are similarly running on faith, they're just not so honest about it.

In other words, the Church is like many atheists, except it has the courage or foolhardiness to be upfront about its ideational recalcitrance.

Sun Wukong
19th September 07, 05:24 AM
DAYoung has a good point: We need more radical fundamentalist atheists who are willing to blow shit up and kill people.

DAYoung
19th September 07, 05:33 AM
Umm.

Yeah.

Arhetton
19th September 07, 05:55 AM
R_hlMK7tCks

Cullion
19th September 07, 07:43 AM
Most people have unjustified and uncritically-accepted principles at the foundation of their words and deeds, and will defend them well past the point of rational discourse.

But none of us here, right?

right?

king of seals
19th September 07, 08:03 AM
But none of us here, right?

right?


1. We admitted we were powerless over addiction - that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptlym admitted it.
11. Sought though prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to addicts and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

I will keep you in my prayers Anna.

Source: http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47959&page=13.

Robot Jesus
19th September 07, 10:49 AM
Religion doesn’t cause war. It merely acts as a unifying factor and motivator.

But there are other things that achieve the same dubious goal. Osama bin Laden has faith in god and his jihad. Hitler had faith in the destiny of the German race. Stalin could have had faith in the wheel of history and the power of the multi national soviet people.


Behind every great atrocity there is a true believer who has abandoned his mundane reason for a glorious faith, his corrupt today for an impossible tomorrow.

AAAhmed46
19th September 07, 11:16 AM
Okay, I really really don't want to get into this thread, but do not fucking argue that the monarchy of Spain during that time was a secular institution. Ever hear of "divine right of kings"? The aristocracy believed that they were apointed to rule by god, they were not secular in any sense.

IF THEY BELIEVED IN GOD THEY WEREN'T ATHIESTS! And they did, rest assured. It was god who gave them their power remember.

I don't believe the slave trade was motivated by religion either, it's always been primarily an economic practice. However, religion has sometimes been used to excuse and justify slavery. If for example, you believe that there's a certain heirachy inherent in god's creation (that old divine right again...), and those Africans just happen to be stuck right at the bottom of it, well it's god's will innit...

And the slave trade stretches much further and deeper than the Europe. Arabs were notorious slavers (and there are indications that the practice hasn't alltogether been wiped out, just moved underground).



Yes they believed in god.

But they didn't do it 'because god told them to'.

They did it because it lined their pockets.

Kingship...how many really believed that? Throughout history, how many times did monarchs of europe clashed with the church?

Thier POWER was secular, and so was their motives.

If an evangelical christian kills a man and takes his wallet, is he killing for Christianity or is he killing for a wallet?



Yeah, arabs sold slaves to the europians. But depending on the dynasty, slavery often resembled that of the greeks, where the slaves had some sort of rights, and could buy their own freedom(didn't always happen though, IE the ottomans were super harsh to slaves, though they arn't arabs, though im sure some arab dynasties did the same) and at that time im positive that the arabs treated thier slaves just as bad as the portugese and spanish.

But doesn't change that the CLERGY in europe where the ones to speak out against the treatment of slaves.




Though i know exactly where your going.

Queen isabella and Ferdinand, they helped start the spanish inquesition and expelled jews and muslims for the sake of being jews and muslims.

So she was a damn fanatic.

My point is that not all of her motives were for the sake of religion, though lots were.

Im sure SHE believed she was chosen by god, same with her husband.


Dicks.

nihilist
19th September 07, 01:43 PM
The vast majority of wars are based on religious differences.

The great "athiest" atrocities were caused by extremist dictators with occult beliefs, religious backgrounds or just plain ol' hunger for power.

I don't believe that religion in general causes wars. I'm saying that religious fanatics cause wars and continue to cause wars, and terrorism.

I also contend that belief in a divine mandate which states that anyone who does not believe as you do is somehow an enemy/damned/heretic/heathen/infidel/etc. is a belief not conducive to peace.

Yes other factors contribute to war and but it does not have anything to do with the dangerous beliefs being passed off by religious extremists in mosques, churches and even the white house.

nihilist
19th September 07, 02:25 PM
This page gives a good synopsys of the situation without being overly critical on either side.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

DAYoung
19th September 07, 03:44 PM
The vast majority of wars are based on religious differences.

Hmmm.

Not sure about this one.

COOKIE MONSTER WANT STATISTICS. YUM.

http://imgred.com/http://flackadelic.typepad.com/flackadelic/images/cookiemonster2.jpg

Lu Tze
19th September 07, 04:02 PM
Thier POWER was secular, and so was their motives.No no no. You can't bring up the Spanish monarchy as an example of the evils that secular athiests can wrought. You can't because it's not the truth, they weren't secular and the weren't athiest, and no amount of speculation on their motives will wver make it so. They were religious people, deeply so, and that is going to colour their decision making whether you like it or not.

I don't want to argue that secular institutions and athiests can't be responsible for evil (for convienience sake, evil in the biblical term), because we all know that some people will find an excuse to be bastards no matter what. But drop this example, it's a bad one and you know it, the Spanish monarchy (nor any monarchy of the period) was not secular.


If an evangelical christian kills a man and takes his wallet, is he killing for Christianity or is he killing for a wallet?No. There are certain policies that evangelicals do support for religious reasons though. One of those policies is the support of Israel, because for the rapture to come true, the Jewish people have to reclaim the holy land. They sincerly believe that the end of the world is coming, and they're not above using their considerable political power (and trying to grow their power, by removing the secular safeguards in their government) to ensure the conditions set out in their prophecy are true (which bodes quite ill for the rest of us, since it involves armageddon...).

For that reason alone they are very scary people. Scary not because they're religious, but because they attempt to marry religion and politics and wield it like a club over the rest of us. That's the same reason fanatical muslims are scary too.

Cullion
19th September 07, 05:29 PM
The vast majority of wars are based on religious differences.

You made that up.



..or just plain ol' hunger for power.

Bingo, and it doesn't go away when you take away the fairy tales. Sometimes fairy tales are all that hold some people back.



I don't believe that religion in general causes wars. I'm saying that religious fanatics cause wars and continue to cause wars, and terrorism.

Economics combined with all-to-human tribalism are the cause of most wars.



I also contend that belief in a divine mandate which states that anyone who does not believe as you do is somehow an enemy/damned/heretic/heathen/infidel/etc. is a belief not conducive to peace.

Not all religions teach this.

Arhetton
19th September 07, 06:45 PM
are we somehow missing the point

that

atheism > religion

because I think we are stuck in a gay debate about who is resposible for war. And the answer is - assholes. And they come from everywhere. Literal interpretation of some (not all) religions produces violence. Likewise believing your life is a cosmic insignificance may lead to suicide/rash actions.

atheists do not give 10% (tithing) of their income to a social institution they have no voting power over, they do not spend quite as much time reading fiction as religious people, they hopefulily teach their kids to build their own set of morals instead of handing some down from 2000 year old goatherders, hmmmmm what else

oh yeah we don't care if you masterbate
are gay
have a teenage romance
have an abortion
we don't care if you occasionally (or all the time) use the lords name in vain
or if you want to eat pork
or shrimp
we don't care if you want to work on a sunday
and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't even be bothered to look up.

In short, the only rules we athiests want you to follow - is the law. The common agreement amongst all people of society.

Cullion
19th September 07, 06:57 PM
Atheists are supposed to be lovers of truth. We're missing the point precisely because some of the Atheists here are veering from that into irrational rheotoric about religion.

I'm an atheist who believes that nothing of lasting value can spring from falsehood, so I'll jump all over it when I hear it from another Atheist.

nihilist
19th September 07, 11:16 PM
Why are the most athiestic countries the most peaceful?

WarPhalange
19th September 07, 11:36 PM
The same reason why there are dinosaur fossils: God is testing you.

Riddeck
20th September 07, 12:21 AM
By the way, do you think organised religion has a monopoly on unverifiable or uncritical claims?

It doesn't.

Most people have unjustified and uncritically-accepted principles at the foundation of their words and deeds, and will defend them well past the point of rational discourse.

The only difference is this: the Church has made this into a virtue called 'faith'. But many self-professed atheists and agnostics are similarly running on faith, they're just not so honest about it.

In other words, the Church is like many atheists, except it has the courage or foolhardiness to be upfront about its ideational recalcitrance.


Could this not happen to science as well?

nihilist
20th September 07, 12:42 AM
Then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them and show them no mercy' (Torah, Book of Deuteronomy 7:1-2)
'Thou shall not kill' (Torah, Book of Exodus 20:13)
'All who take the sword will perish by the sword' (New Testament, Matthew 5:43-44)
'Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but aggress not' (Koran 2:190)
'Whoever fights in the cause of God, then gets killed or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense' (Koran 4:74)
'When all efforts to restore peace prove useless and no words avail, lawful is the flash of steel' (10th Sikh guru, Guru Gobind Singh)
'May your weapons be strong to drive away the attackers, may your arms be powerful enough to check the foes, let your army be glorious, not the evil-doer' (Hinduism's Rig Veda 1-39:2)

nihilist
20th September 07, 12:43 AM
Talk about your mixed messages.

nihilist
20th September 07, 01:23 AM
You made that up.

I might have.






Sometimes fairy tales are all that hold some people back.

Sometimes the sun is eclipsed.





Economics combined with all-to-human tribalism are the cause of most wars.

1. Poverty occurs more within ignorant communities.

2. Tribalism tends to occur more within less intelligent communities.

3. Religious people tend to be less intelligent.

Hmmmm...




Not all religions teach this.

No shit?

nihilist
20th September 07, 01:27 AM
I'm an atheist who believes that nothing of lasting value can spring from falsehood, so I'll jump all over it when I hear it from another Atheist.

I'm not an athiest.

Stop spreading lies.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 01:36 AM
I'm not an atheist.

Stop baking pies.

WarPhalange
20th September 07, 02:10 AM
I'm not an atheist.

Stop wearing ties.

nihilist
20th September 07, 02:18 AM
I'm not an athiest.

Stop blowing guys.

DAYoung
20th September 07, 02:29 AM
I'm not an atheist.

Stop tipping cows.

D'oh!

nihilist
20th September 07, 02:32 AM
I can't be topped.

Don't even try.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 02:48 AM
I can't be mopped

just let me dry

nihilist
20th September 07, 02:57 AM
I can't be mopped

just let me dry (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1571727&postcount=24)

nihilist
20th September 07, 02:59 AM
Don't say I didn't warn ya.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:02 AM
You're just upset because you were topped.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:04 AM
I am so upset that I am falling on the floor laughing.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:05 AM
It can't be sopped , just douche the "Y"

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:10 AM
I am so upset that I am falling on the floor laughing.


Didn't I tell you to let me dry? Now you're falling on the floor.....I should put up a sign.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:19 AM
If the bomb's dropped

it's coffin time

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:21 AM
If your mom drops, it's boffin time.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:24 AM
If your balls plop, its chopping time.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:27 AM
When your balls drop, drop me a line.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:32 AM
Your balls are props, toys by design.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:35 AM
Your balls are Pop's

He is behind.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:39 AM
Your rhyme is shot, it just doesn't jibe.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:40 AM
Clowns are hot, even the mimes.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:41 AM
I smoke the pot, all of the time.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:41 AM
of course it jibes.
If you need me to diagram it for you then I will.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:42 AM
Just think back to that time when daddy gave you that first reacharound.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:44 AM
of course it jibes.
If you need me to diagram it for you then I will.


You only wish I was that stupid. I guess you've never encountered a rhyme for rhyme's sake before.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:45 AM
Just think back to that time when daddy gave you that first reacharound.


Stop projecting your childhood memories on me. You need help, I hear they have counselors for that sort of thing.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:53 AM
Thanks for killing a perfectly bad thread.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 03:55 AM
Thanks for killing a perfectly bad thread.


My pleasure. :biggrin:


Of course, I had some help. That is to say, you.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:58 AM
Your pussy got sore and it showed.

Don't blame it on me pal.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 04:02 AM
Your pussy got sore and it showed.

Don't blame it on me pal.




Is that what you were thinking? LOL!!!!

...more projection it seems......heh

I actually had fun throughout this exchange, and I racked up the post count in the process. What do I have to be sore about?

nihilist
20th September 07, 04:14 AM
Well you got less and less funny.
But maybe it's because you're from Utah.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 04:15 AM
Well you got less and less funny.
But maybe it's because you're from Utah.


*Sigh* I am from Maine, FYI. I just happen to have the shit luck to be stuck in this state.

nihilist
20th September 07, 04:17 AM
LOL fair enough.

EDIT:

Maybe it because you're *IN* Utah.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 04:25 AM
LOL fair enough.

EDIT:

Maybe it because you're *IN* Utah.


You just couldn't let that go, could you?




If you're going to slam me at least try to be original next time, that lol u livz in ut4h schtick is older than King Tut's mummified corpse.

nihilist
20th September 07, 04:29 AM
Settle down, I was actually sympathizing with you by pointing out the life-sucking qualities of a notorious vortex of evil.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 04:31 AM
Settle down, I was actually sympathizing with you by pointing out the life-sucking qualities of a notorious vortex of evil.


Ah, well, carry on then.


If I seem defensive on that part, it's because of all the stupid comments and looks I get from people when they find out I live in Utah. They think that if you live here you automatically have no brain (which is occasionally true).

Gypsy Jazz
20th September 07, 04:41 AM
I started reading this thread earlier because I think it's just about the most interesting topic out there these days. Either as a bragging right or a testament to my stupid, I watched the entire "Beyond Belief" conference which was something like 15 hours long with a majority of it being devoted to facing religion.

Upon checking back I realized it turned into some sort of strange rhyme battle. I'm not sure that I'm disappointed though, because that was entertaining as well. Probably one of the more successful derails I've seen.

nihilist
20th September 07, 04:52 AM
*BOWS*

[and scene]

AAAhmed46
20th September 07, 05:17 PM
No no no. You can't bring up the Spanish monarchy as an example of the evils that secular athiests can wrought. You can't because it's not the truth, they weren't secular and the weren't athiest, and no amount of speculation on their motives will wver make it so. They were religious people, deeply so, and that is going to colour their decision making whether you like it or not.

I don't want to argue that secular institutions and athiests can't be responsible for evil (for convienience sake, evil in the biblical term), because we all know that some people will find an excuse to be bastards no matter what. But drop this example, it's a bad one and you know it, the Spanish monarchy (nor any monarchy of the period) was not secular.

No. There are certain policies that evangelicals do support for religious reasons though. One of those policies is the support of Israel, because for the rapture to come true, the Jewish people have to reclaim the holy land. They sincerly believe that the end of the world is coming, and they're not above using their considerable political power (and trying to grow their power, by removing the secular safeguards in their government) to ensure the conditions set out in their prophecy are true (which bodes quite ill for the rest of us, since it involves armageddon...).

For that reason alone they are very scary people. Scary not because they're religious, but because they attempt to marry religion and politics and wield it like a club over the rest of us. That's the same reason fanatical muslims are scary too.


See, mixing politics and religion is really tricky thiing.

That i agree should never never happen. Simply because there tend to be people living in {Insert country} that do not adhere to a faith or are a part of a faith but do not follow it the same say.

I say religion should be a personal thing.




Why are the most athiestic countries the most peaceful?


BTW THX: Not all athiestic countries are the most peaceful.

Uzbeckistan(LOL Spelling) and Libya for example, are places you do NOT want to live. Serbia was communist(kind of) and look what happened to the bosnians(ie the genocide)

PResident Yeltsin(remember him?) is responsible for ordering 500 000 chechnyans to their deaths, often not mentioned, but it happened.

nihilist
20th September 07, 10:49 PM
fascist dictatorships and state mandated "athiesm" are not good examples of athiest communities.

DAYoung
20th September 07, 11:03 PM
WARNING WARNING WARNING

Instruments have detected a red herring. Identification of any generalised consequentialist arguments contra religion must trigger immediate disposal. Failure to do so will result in cognitive contamination and idiocy.

WARNING WARNING WARNING

nihilist
20th September 07, 11:15 PM
The evidence for non dictatorship athiest countries being more peaceful is overwhelming.

Sorry to hit you over the head with the truth.

nihilist
20th September 07, 11:20 PM
http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/

ironlurker
20th September 07, 11:47 PM
I always liked Durkheim's definition of religion.


<small>Durkheim defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say set apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community, called a church, all those who adhere to them" (1965 [1912]: 62). Thus he stated unequivocally that religion is not primarily a false science, nor is a belief in supernatural beings and powers its most distinguishing characteristic. Instead, religion is quintessentially social, a product of the collective life and an embodiment of the moral requisites of human social existence. For Durkheim, humans are religious because they are members of collectivities, and neither individuals nor groups can long exist without religious—that is to say, moral—constraint.</small> http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/MoralC.htm

Religions continue to exist because they promote their own existence- especially, in today's world, in a demographic sense. "Fundamentalist" Muslims and "fundamentalist" Christians just plain have more kids then the sterilized polyamorous beatnik couple with authentic Inca sweaters down the street.

Most religions, and certainly most religious symbolism, were at one time or another nothing less then the celebration of procreation. There's a reason being Jewish involves a ritual with the penis, there's a reason why Catholics and Mormons fret over masturbation- be fruitful and multiply.

Also, religions provide people answers. Sometimes bad answers, sometimes empty answers, sometimes insipid answers, but they provide answers that address existential issues innate to the human experience. Max Weber focused on suffering in particular. If you read conversion narratives, what you often find is that the subject found an answer to their existential crises.

Science tells you exactly why your daughter is dying of leukemia, but it doesn't tell you why. I'm not arguing that the "why's" provided by religions are legitimate, but for someone to pass through such a crisis and not ask "why" they need be dull or apathetic. To find the answer in Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam or so on might be seen as a moral or intellectual failure, but for some who face it the only alternatives appear to be surpression or madness.

I guess I'm saying that behind the "hocus pocus", religions actually have a pragmatic dimension to which they owe their continued existence- yes, in the face of all the evidence against their presuppositions.

nihilist
20th September 07, 11:53 PM
Please tell me how many of these hate groups are atheist:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

Gypsy Jazz
21st September 07, 12:46 AM
I don't know that it was suggested, or even implied that "the most atheistic countries are the most peaceful" because they have a high atheist population. It somewhat comes off that way to me though, and I don't know if that was your intention.

It's hard to say what starts the cycle, being peaceful first or having a high standard of living first. The two seem to go hand and hand, and either can begat the other. With that said I think that people who are very well off need religion farless as an explanation as to their state or as a crutch for support.

In a whole other chicken/egg cycle, places with high standards of living tend to have better educational institutions as a whole. Though based on nothing more than personal experience, I think many atheists become faithless because of things like evolutionary theory and cosmology. Science explained away gods older than Yahweh, and probably will continue to do so. The good 'ole god of the gaps loses ground when profound mysteries of existence are solved.

I feel strongly that a faithless government is best, but as a whole I think the peaceful nature of those countries leads to the atheism rather than the other way around.

AAAhmed46
21st September 07, 12:53 AM
My god can kick your gods ass.


My jesus can kick your jesus's ass.

My moses is better then your moses.


I guess that sums up religious wars.

nihilist
21st September 07, 12:56 AM
Poverty leads to religion and prosperity leads to secularism.

That is generally the way it works.

The same religion that can offer hope can also be used as a device to propigate hatred and order violence. The devisive nature is what is and should be considered frightening, not the happy hippie love parts.

nihilist
21st September 07, 12:59 AM
My god can kick your gods ass.



God is invulnerable yet he is all powerful.

Can He kick His own ass?

Yes, and no.

nihilist
21st September 07, 01:01 AM
Just to prove that religious people are violent I plan to find Christ tomorrow and then kill everyone.

You have about 24 hrs to live.

Make the most of it.

ironlurker
21st September 07, 01:05 AM
Just to prove that religious people are violent I plan to find Christ tomorrow and then kill everyone.

You have about 24 hrs to live.

Make the most of it.

When you find him, tell him I want that lighter back

nihilist
21st September 07, 01:07 AM
Oh, there will be plenty of fire



IN HELL!

king of seals
21st September 07, 05:53 AM
Durkheim defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say set apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community, called a church, all those who adhere to them" (1965 [1912]: 62). Thus he stated unequivocally that religion is not primarily a false science, nor is a belief in supernatural beings and powers its most distinguishing characteristic.

LOL SACRED.

DAYoung
21st September 07, 06:07 AM
LOL SACRED.

Why?

king of seals
21st September 07, 06:39 AM
To believe in the sacred is to believe in supernatural powers.

Cullion
21st September 07, 09:16 AM
sa·cred (skrd)
adj.
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

vladoshi
21st September 07, 11:09 AM
Ho hum. Another predictable christian bash. Another commentator too afraid of muslims fulfilling their stereotype to criticise them directly. Or that the bibical "christian" god parts everyone nit picks are the Jewish god (Old Testament). And does he attack them? Not really. Why not?

ironlurker
21st September 07, 11:18 AM
To believe in the sacred is to believe in supernatural powers.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States


The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment

Civic religion need not involve supernatural powers, but it certainly has a strong sense of the sacred.

AAAhmed46
21st September 07, 11:25 AM
Ho hum. Another predictable christian bash. Another commentator too afraid of muslims fulfilling their stereotype to criticise them directly. Or that the bibical "christian" god parts everyone nit picks are the Jewish god (Old Testament). And does he attack them? Not really. Why not?

Oh please.

If you've been on this site long enough, you would know that people are way harder on Islam here then they are on christianity.

oh they complain about it more, but there are entire threads pages and pages long devoted to bashing Islam.


The christian arguement "YOU MAKE FUN OF US, BUT YOU DON'T MAKE FUN OF MUSLIMS" does not work anymore, forums across the web no longer adhere to this. It's a tired argument.

muslims get made fun of bad on the interwebz.

So blah.

nihilist
21st September 07, 11:58 AM
Christians are good; muslims are evil.


There, feel better now?

DAYoung
21st September 07, 03:56 PM
To believe in the sacred is to believe in supernatural powers.

Nope. Sanctity is associated with the demarcation of some place or time as reverential. It implies no transcendent order.

DAYoung
21st September 07, 03:59 PM
sa·cred (skrd)
adj.
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

Exactly. Religious sanctity is one species of a larger genus.

Cullion
21st September 07, 05:02 PM
Or that the bibical "christian" god parts everyone nit picks are the Jewish god (Old Testament). And does he attack them? Not really. Why not?

I have a feeling that Vlad has something has something he'd like to discuss about jews.

DAYoung
21st September 07, 05:13 PM
I have a feeling that Vlad has something has something he'd like to discuss about jews.

Ooh, ooh! I know!

Is it about kletzmer music?

'Cause I totally agree.

ironlurker
21st September 07, 05:35 PM
Ooh, ooh! I know!

Is it about kletzmer music?

'Cause I totally agree.


No, it's Yom Kippur duh

DAYoung
21st September 07, 05:41 PM
Oh shit.

I'm not at schul.

GOD'S GONNA BE PISSED.

ironlurker
21st September 07, 05:48 PM
GOD'S GONNA BE PISSED.

what else is new

Gypsy Jazz
21st September 07, 05:50 PM
I was born Jewish, and I think it's something like a really shitty super power. I look pretty much like a "typical" white bread American majority, and can easily get away with that assumption. But when I mention it, I instantly become a minority, and get to complain about how hard it is with "the man" keeping me down. Other benefits include being able to make fun of Jews in the worst ways without people getting (overly) offended. The only real negative consequence is being unusually prone to developing phelgm by way of dairy products. Oh, also vicious anti-Jewish sentiments sometimes ending in violence, but thankfully I've never experienced that first hand.

On that note, Jews are dumb LOL. The reason why Jews don't get much flack for their beliefs is that in large part there are rabbinical traditions of scriptural interpetations which conform around scientific knowledge. It's still all silly to make the text fit the truth if it was supposedly true to begin with, but at least they're not the one's preaching the literal biblical "truth".

I have a fairly orthodox Jewish friend who keeps kosher, abides by the sabbath, wears the yarmulka, etc. No trench coat beard and hat, but still pretty damn devout. He said something to the effect of reading the Torah is an exercise in identifying contradictions.

Cullion
21st September 07, 05:51 PM
Knock it off you guys. This is serious fucking business.

Vlad is about to explain the truth to us about why a relatively small community of people not known for trying to sermonise and convert non-members get less flack than fundamentalist christians and muslims in a discussion about whether religions cause wars.

ironlurker
21st September 07, 05:58 PM
On that note, Jews are dumb LOL.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Buber.jpeg

No one very dumb has ever read Feuerbach

DAYoung
21st September 07, 06:11 PM
I was born Jewish, and I think it's something like a really shitty super power. I look pretty much like a "typical" white bread American majority, and can easily get away with that assumption. But when I mention it, I instantly become a minority, and get to complain about how hard it is with "the man" keeping me down. Other benefits include being able to make fun of Jews in the worst ways without people getting (overly) offended. The only real negative consequence is being unusually prone to developing phelgm by way of dairy products. Oh, also vicious anti-Jewish sentiments sometimes ending in violence, but thankfully I've never experienced that first hand.

On that note, Jews are dumb LOL. The reason why Jews don't get much flack for their beliefs is that in large part there are rabbinical traditions of scriptural interpetations which conform around scientific knowledge. It's still all silly to make the text fit the truth if it was supposedly true to begin with, but at least they're not the one's preaching the literal biblical "truth".

I have a fairly orthodox Jewish friend who keeps kosher, abides by the sabbath, wears the yarmulka, etc. No trench coat beard and hat, but still pretty damn devout. He said something to the effect of reading the Torah is an exercise in identifying contradictions.

Meshugener.

DAYoung
21st September 07, 06:11 PM
Knock it off you guys. This is serious fucking business.

Vlad is about to explain the truth to us about why a relatively small community of people not known for trying to sermonise and convert non-members get less flack than fundamentalist christians and muslims in a discussion about whether religions cause wars.

He's about to Vladmonish the Heebs.

DAYoung
21st September 07, 06:12 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Buber.jpeg

No one very dumb has ever read Feuerbach

"Except Feuerbach."

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/marx-karl-2.jpg

Stick
22nd September 07, 01:50 AM
O RLY?

I thought the average American citizen would rather deal with an atheist than a Muslim...

You think wrong, very wrong.

Gypsy Jazz
22nd September 07, 02:24 AM
http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find


From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

There are a whole bunch of articles on the survey they mention. Yay America!

Question!
22nd September 07, 03:02 AM
What if you're a homosexual atheist from a minority group and a recent immigrant?

Gypsy Jazz
22nd September 07, 03:19 AM
What if you're a homosexual atheist from a minority group and a recent immigrant?

You are put into a space ship and launched directly into the heart of the sun.

Lu Tze
22nd September 07, 06:22 AM
Nah, that would mean Bush would have to stop sucking Haliburton's cock long enough to increase NASA's funding.

Cullion
22nd September 07, 09:26 AM
"Except Feuerbach."

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/marx-karl-2.jpg

If, Sir, you just did a real subtle 'they all look the same to me' joke, then I would salute you.

Except that I have suspicions that you might have a touch of the Israelite in your own family tree.

It's the passing exams and stuff that gives it away.

DAYoung
22nd September 07, 03:42 PM
If, Sir, you just did a real subtle 'they all look the same to me' joke, then I would salute you.

Except that I have suspicions that you might have a touch of the Israelite in your own family tree.

It's the passing exams and stuff that gives it away.

You do me too much credit.

I was quoting Marx: "Feuerbach wasn't smart enough to read his own work."1

[1] Not an actual quote.

ironlurker
22nd September 07, 04:28 PM
You do me too much credit.

I was quoting Marx: "Feuerbach wasn't smart enough to read his own work."1

[1] Not an actual quote.

Yogi Berra: "I never said all of those things I said."

Actual quote.

DAYoung
22nd September 07, 05:05 PM
Yogi Berra: "I never said all of those things I said."

Actual quote.

I just looked up his saying - brilliant.

For a while, I was on a sports radio station, discussing the philosophy behind sports aphorisms. His stuff should've got a guernsey.

Cullion
22nd September 07, 05:23 PM
You do me too much credit.

I was quoting Marx: "Feuerbach wasn't smart enough to read his own work."1

[1] Not an actual quote.

That's pretty clever.

nihilist
22nd September 07, 06:19 PM
I'm a German who recently found out that I have a significant amoun of Jew blood running through my veins.


I really hate myself sometimes.

Cullion
22nd September 07, 06:30 PM
I'm a German who recently found out that I have a significant amoun of Jew blood running through my veins.


I really hate myself sometimes.

Have a bowl of chicken soup and foreclose on a few homesteads, you'll feel better about it.

nihilist
22nd September 07, 06:56 PM
I'm torn between foreclosure and an overwhelming urge to change the locks and puncture the gas lines.

Cullion
22nd September 07, 08:28 PM
I'm torn between foreclosure and an overwhelming urge to change the locks and puncture the gas lines.

Just remember to cut up and down rather than back and forth. And make sure the water is body temperature.

nihilist
22nd September 07, 09:08 PM
Awww, YOU REALLY DO CARE!

nihilist
23rd September 07, 01:09 PM
Not even close.

Any objections to these reasons?

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/20_Reasons_to_abandon_Christianity

Cullion
23rd September 07, 01:48 PM
Not even close.

Any objections to these reasons?

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/20_Reasons_to_abandon_Christianity

Your boy there is a 'tard and this is why

1) They speak of the sexual guilt induced by Christianity by citing a description of it in 'Portnoy's Complaint' by Philip Roth. Portnoy's complaint is about what it's like to grow up jewish from the point of view of a young Jewish man.

2) "Christianity not only reduces, for all practical purposes, the question of morality to that of sexual behavior"

They just made that up. Plain and simple.

3) "but by listing its prohibitions, it encourages an "everything not prohibited is permitted" mentality."

Depends on the denomination of Christianity we're talking about.

4) "Another very relevant example is that until the latter part of the 19th century Christians engaged in the slave trade, and Christian preachers defended it, citing biblical passages, from the pulpit."

Some christians did, and other christians cited their faith as their reason for such strong opposition to slavery. This choad has clearly never heard of William Wilberforce.



Today, with the exception of a relatively few liberal churchgoers, Christians ignore the very real evils plaguing our society—poverty; homelessness; hunger; militarism; a grossly unfair distribution of wealth and income; .

Whoever wrote this is full of shit, basically. Mother Theresa ignored poverty? What a blowhard asshole.

Like the way he concludes this critique of christianity with the 'distribution of wealth and income'. He's trying to insinuate that only people who believe that we should all be of roughly equal wealth are moral. i.e. 'how can people be moral if they aren't socialists'

"Organized Christianity is a skillful apologist for the status quo and all the evils that go along with it. It diverts attention from real problems by focusing attention on sexual issues, and when confronted with social evils such as poverty glibly dismisses them with platitudes such as, "The poor ye have always with you." When confronted with the problems of militarism and war, most Christians shrug and say, "That’s human nature. It’s always been that way, and it always will." One suspects that 200 years ago their forebears would have said exactly the same thing about slavery."

The author exhibits an almost complete ignorance of christian charitable works and history. I'm not going to carry on reading and correcting this nonsense.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 02:20 PM
1) They speak of the sexual guilt induced by Christianity by citing a description of it in 'Portnoy's Complaint' by Philip Roth. Portnoy's complaint is about what it's like to grow up jewish from the point of view of a young Jewish man.



Good call but it does not erode the premise.



4) "Another very relevant example is that until the latter part of the 19th century Christians engaged in the slave trade, and Christian preachers defended it, citing biblical passages, from the pulpit."

Some christians did, and other christians cited their faith as their reason for such strong opposition to slavery. This choad has clearly never heard of William Wilberforce.

It went on to explain that many christians fought against slavery but you are just cherry-picking your criticisms.




Whoever wrote this is full of shit, basically. Mother Theresa ignored poverty? What a blowhard asshole.

http://macintyre.com/content/view/533/105/



Like the way he concludes this critique of christianity with the 'distribution of wealth and income'. He's trying to insinuate that only people who believe that we should all be of roughly equal wealth are moral. i.e. 'how can people be moral if they aren't socialists'

Was Jesus a capitalist? I don't know.


"Organized Christianity is a skillful apologist for the status quo and all the evils that go along with it. It diverts attention from real problems by focusing attention on sexual issues, and when confronted with social evils such as poverty glibly dismisses them with platitudes such as, "The poor ye have always with you." When confronted with the problems of militarism and war, most Christians shrug and say, "That’s human nature. It’s always been that way, and it always will." One suspects that 200 years ago their forebears would have said exactly the same thing about slavery."

The author exhibits an almost complete ignorance of christian charitable works and history. I'm not going to carry on reading and correcting this nonsense.

He is not talking about the positive aspects of Christianity

It's called "reasons to abandon" if you recall.

When the Pope refuses to allow condoms in a countrywhere AIDS is killing millions you would ignore the criticism and talk about how he patted a child on the head and led him away from a life as a street thief.

While I admire your knowledge I am appalled at your purposeful ignoring of the big picture.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 02:27 PM
8q1m-8npkJ4

Cullion
23rd September 07, 02:56 PM
He is not talking about the positive aspects of Christianity

It's called "reasons to abandon" if you recall.

That alone I can stand (but it would be on the same level as me equating atheism with stalinism) but a lot of the stuff he's saying simply isn't true.



When the Pope refuses to allow condoms in a countrywhere AIDS is killing millions you would ignore the criticism and talk about how he patted a child on the head and led him away from a life as a street thief.

While I admire your knowledge I am appalled at your purposeful ignoring of the big picture.

No I wouldn't. I'm an atheist myself. I just think some atheists make stupid overstated cases for atheism. My view is as DAYoung pointed out: Religion isn't particularly evil, and it has done a lot of good. The problem is it simply isn't true. There's no need to build christianity up into a monster in order to reject it.

Lu Tze
23rd September 07, 02:57 PM
Yeah, it's probably better not to mention that cynical bitch when discussing the good things about christianity.

Edit: ^Mother Theresa^

Zub-Zub
23rd September 07, 03:02 PM
What is the name of that video? And why does that guy with the glasses remind me of Michael Moore?

Cullion
23rd September 07, 03:05 PM
Yeah, it's probably better not to mention that cynical bitch when discussing the good things about christianity.

Edit: ^Mother Theresa^

Let's not go the Chris Hitchens route. I have yet to hear her criticised by somebody who gave as much or more of her life trying to help others whilst sacrificing their own happiness and comfort to do so.

Lu Tze
23rd September 07, 03:07 PM
What is the name of that video? And why does that guy with the glasses remind me of Michael Moore?That's Penn and Teller's Bullshit, and the guy is Penn Jillette.

Why do I have to tell you this though, have you recently escaped from the centre of the earth?


Let's not go the Chris Hitchens route. I have yet to hear her criticised by somebody who gave as much or more of her life trying to help others whilst sacrificing their own happiness and comfort to do so.If a christian charity for the poor doesn't actually spend most of it's money on the poor, and instead spends it on institutions to promote christianity (or more accurately, catholicism) and proselytise then that's bullshit. If what is said is true then the source of the criticism doesn't negate it's validity.

Zub-Zub
23rd September 07, 03:09 PM
That's Penn and Teller's Bullshit, and the guy is Penn Jillette.

Why do I have to tell you this though, have you recently escaped from the centre of the earth?


No. I recently escaped from a psychiatric ward.

Cullion
23rd September 07, 03:34 PM
If a christian charity for the poor doesn't actually spend most of it's money on the poor, and instead spends it on institutions to promote christianity (or more accurately, catholicism) and proselytise then that's bullshit. If what is said is true then the source of the criticism doesn't negate it's validity.

Most secular charities spend more of their money on staff salaries, advertising etc.. than on the actual end cause. Chris Hitchens taking the moral high ground and portraying her as evil just doesn't wash with me.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 03:44 PM
That alone I can stand (but it would be on the same level as me equating atheism with stalinism) but a lot of the stuff he's saying simply isn't true.

That's why I posted the link. I asked for opinion on it.

You keep mentioning athiesm as if it is a set of instructions.

Christianity is a set of instructions and when those instructions dictate beating wives and slaves etc.etc., it should be spoken against, but you would rather make an argument about the "good" parts of christianity.

Tell me, if a person is on trial for the brutal rape of a two year old would you object to the prosecution not talking about how he once donated something to charity?Christianity is defined by it's instruction book and to a lesser extent it's practitioners. if you cannot undercut the premises then you have not effctively argued against the objections.


No I wouldn't. I'm an atheist myself.

You don't sound like an athiest, you sound like an apologist.


I just think some atheists make stupid overstated cases for atheism.


You really must be joking.
Religion isn't particularly evil, and it has done a lot of good.

We aren't knocking the good parts, just the particularly evil ones.


The problem is it simply isn't true.

The elephant in the room comes to mind.


There's no need to build christianity up into a monster in order to reject it.

There is a need to show the truth, expose frauds, lies, inconsistencies and generally educate people about dangerous and bigoted scripture that leads to the propigation of pain and suffering.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 03:48 PM
Let's not go the Chris Hitchens route. I have yet to hear her criticised by somebody who gave as much or more of her life trying to help others whilst sacrificing their own happiness and comfort to do so.

Ever watch a sadist? a sadist is not sacrificing their own happiness and comfort when watching others suffer.

Lu Tze
23rd September 07, 03:48 PM
Most secular charities spend more of their money on staff salaries, advertising etc.. than on the actual end cause.Then they're bullshit too, but for different reasons (being inefficient).

It still doesn't invalidate the criticsm made by Hitchens, which is that the charity misled it's benefectors and used the money to further an agenda different from it's publicly stated one.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 03:49 PM
Tell me Cullion, why weren't the friends or families allowed to visit the home of the dying?

Cullion
23rd September 07, 03:51 PM
There is a need to show the truth, expose frauds, lies, inconsistencies and generally educate people about dangerous and bigoted scripture that leads to the propigation of pain and suffering.

Yes, but for that to work it has to be done with a rigorous regard for truth and accurate characterisation. That site didn't show it. I know I could justify almost anything I wanted using scripture (srsly, try me), but I'd know that what I was trying to justify was not the normative set of ethics Roman Catholicism as taught to me was trying to strive for.

I could also verbally justify almost any behaviour in the absence of scripture, but I'd still know that I was being an asshole.

In many (but not all cases) I don't think the religious scriptures are the real causes of the shitty behaviour, so I don't think the shittyness would stop without them.

I am just an atheist who doesn't really feel the need to stamp out other people's religious faith.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 03:52 PM
Then they're bullshit too, but for different reasons (being inefficient).

It still doesn't invalidate the criticsm made by Hitchens, which is that the charity misled it's benefectors and used the money to further an agenda different from it's publicly stated one.


you know how when a child is taken to task for a misdeed in school he instantly hollers: "But the other kids were doing it too"

Cullion is a lot like that.

Cullion
23rd September 07, 03:54 PM
Tell me Cullion, why weren't the friends or families allowed to visit the home of the dying?

http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/pascha-fresco.jpg

nihilist
23rd September 07, 04:03 PM
Yes, but for that to work it has to be done with a rigorous regard for truth and accurate characterisation.

Because Christians would do the same when arguing against say, EVOLUTION.





I know I could justify almost anything I wanted using scripture.

Great, justify ATHIESM.




I could also verbally justify almost any behaviour in the absence of scripture, but I'd still know that I was being an asshole.

The difference here is that you would be making shit up rather than torturing or killing according to GOD'S LAW.

I
n many (but not all cases) I don't think the religious scriptures are the real causes of the shitty behaviour, so I don't think the shittyness would stop without them.
again, refer back to the hate groups link I posted and give a ratio of secular VS religious base.




I am just an atheist who still feels the need to coddle other people's religious faith regardless of it's bigoted and dangerous teachings based on the guilt that was instilled when I was too young to think for myself

Fixed,

nihilist
23rd September 07, 04:10 PM
http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/pascha-fresco.jpg

I had no idea Mother teresa had a sex change.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 04:31 PM
The Westboro Baptist Church is, as we speak forming an alliance with the almighty and are praying daily that all fags will soon be "cured "of AIDS.

Cullion
23rd September 07, 04:35 PM
Because Christians would do the same when arguing against say, EVOLUTION.

Rise above it.



Great, justify ATHIESM.

Simple. I just hold the book up, point at it and say 'it's only a retranslated collection of ancient middle-eastern myths, you know that, right?'




The difference here is that you would be making shit up rather than torturing or killing according to GOD'S LAW.

I don't think it hurts more when your tortured or killed by a religious believer.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 04:50 PM
Rise above it.
A certain amount of generalization is required for entertainment value.




Simple. I just hold the book up, point at it and say 'it's only a retranslated collection of ancient middle-eastern myths, you know that, right?'
Cullion: I am just an atheist who doesn't really feel the need to stamp out other people's religious faith.





I don't think it hurts more when your tortured or killed by a religious believer.
Just when I thought you couldn't be any more intellectually dishonest you go and surpass my expectations. Bravo.

ironlurker
23rd September 07, 05:48 PM
again, refer back to the hate groups link I posted and give a ratio of secular VS religious base.,
I think you've hit upon the key here- groups. Irrational, group action, is more easily motivated by irrational, group thought. Religion=collectivity, more so than God, gods, gargoyles, etc., going along with Durkheim's definition. I might even say that the ideal type of the atheist asshole is a sociopath- he just don't give a shit. You obey the atheist dictator psychopath because you're scared shitless of him, not because you agree with him*. The ideal type of the religious/group identity asshole is the fascist/hatemonger. They seek submergence in a collective, due to ideology and/or psychological factors, they work in groups. Religious/race groups would thus be responsible for more destruction, etc., because human beings can simply accomplish more in groups.

*with the Cultural Revolution/red guards I'd argue that a phenomenon of almost Dionysian collective effervescence was in play, so Durkheim still wins.

Cullion
23rd September 07, 06:01 PM
Cullion: I am just an atheist who doesn't really feel the need to stamp out other people's religious faith.

The devil made me do it.



Just when I thought you couldn't be any more intellectually dishonest you go and surpass my expectations. Bravo.

I've been arguing pretty consistently that I think religion is used as an excuse for violence, but is not the cause on the grounds that I see just as much violence in secular societies.

Plus, you're going to fucking fry on judgement day.

Cullion
23rd September 07, 06:02 PM
http://www.vaticanotours.com/g/sistine_chapel.jpg

Lu Tze
23rd September 07, 06:09 PM
That was painted by Michelangelo, not the fucking pope. Paid for with money extorted by the Catholic church from the ignorant masses I might add.

DAYoung
23rd September 07, 06:11 PM
"Reese, Stalin himself was not religious, but the degree to which he and Lenin before him were deified does speak of the Russian religious context (much to the apparent disappointment of Lenin). However, it also had a lot to do with the philosophy and practice of Marxism-Leninism (which was anti-religious). The Soviets actively tried to discourage religion, but their own Marxism combined with orthodox Christianity to produce nasty results. As Tumarkin put it, "the new Bolshevik order, seeking to impose itself upon Russia, was itself molded by precisely those elements of old Russian culture that Lenin so desperately sought to destroy." Their particular kind of Marxism was precisely why they were unable to appreciate and recognize Russian culture. The key is not in Stalin's education, but in the combination of his Marxism with Russian culture.

Again, religion is not the sole cause - in history, there is very rarely one single cause, as various colluding and conflicting influences combine over time." - from Bullshido, '06

Cullion
23rd September 07, 06:11 PM
That was painted by Michaelangelo, not the fucking pope. Paid for with money extorted by the Catholic church from the ignorant masses I might add.

Do you really think I didn't know that?

nihilist
23rd September 07, 06:15 PM
Churches can be used for good or evil depending on the gullibility of the bleevers and the motives of the shepherd.

Couple this with the archaic hate filled scripture and you come out with groups like the Westboro Baptist Church where all manner of hatred and callousness to disease and death is not only excused, but encouraged.

The best part is, nearly all Christians would rather pardon a Westboro parishioner than an atheist. Figure that one out.

nihilist
23rd September 07, 06:22 PM
I've been arguing pretty consistently that I think religion is used as an excuse for violence, but is not the cause on the grounds that I see just as much violence in secular societies. when comparing highly religious societies with societies with high levels of organic atheism your statement could not be further from the truth.


Plus, you're going to fucking fry on judgement day.
Pascal called, he wants his wager back.

Lu Tze
23rd September 07, 06:26 PM
Do you really think I didn't know that?
Your point was presumably "religion can create beautiful things".

My counterpoint was: "starving peasants not being tricked into giving away their meagre incomes, to be spent on extravagant luxuries by a corrupt organization interested only in it's own self preservation and aggrandizement, is much more beautiful than some ponce's palace will ever be".

But that's a bit of a mouthful.

Cullion
23rd September 07, 06:37 PM
when comparing highly religious societies with societies with high levels of organic atheism your statement could not be further from the truth.

What's this 'organic' atheism you speak of?



Pascal called, he wants his wager back.

You're not going to be saying 'cullion, I wish I'd listened'. You're going to be screaming it, impaled on a pitchfork of red-hot iron.

Cullion
23rd September 07, 06:39 PM
Your point was presumably "religion can create beautiful things".

Yes.



My counterpoint was: "starving peasants not being tricked into giving away their meagre incomes, to be spent on extravagant luxuries by a corrupt organization interested only in it's own self preservation and aggrandizement, is much more beautiful than some ponce's palace will ever be".

But that's a bit of a mouthful.

More of the money came from tithes on the nobility and the church's own land-holdings. But I can see your point. What about all the other art inspired by religious faith that didn't cost so much ?

Lu Tze
23rd September 07, 06:49 PM
It still cost something (and nobles didn't grow their money on trees. Well some of them did... but it was the peasants that did the growing). For the record I have no problem with religious faith, or religious people.

I'm very uncomfortable with organized religion though, because any organization that believes it holds the absolute authority of god is ripe for exploitation by ambitious men. The Catholic church is the primary example of this, the evangelical movement in America is another one. They're a blight on humanity IMO, and do far more harm than good, I don't care how many 'charidees' they support.

Strangely enough, I believe Jesus will back me up on this one...

Cullion
23rd September 07, 06:52 PM
It still cost something (and nobles didn't grow their money on trees. Well some of them did... but it was the peasants that did the growing). For the record I have no problem with religious faith, or religious people.

I'm very uncomfortable with organized religion though, because any organization that believes it holds the absolute authority of god is ripe for exploitation by ambitious men. The Catholic church is the primary example of this, the evangelical movement in America is another one. They're a blight on humanity IMO, and do far more harm than good, I don't care how many 'charidees' they support.

Strangely enough, I believe Jesus will back me up on this one...

You're going to be in the same trench of fire as THX, one of you digging a hole and the other filling it in. For eternity.

DAYoung
23rd September 07, 06:55 PM
The Church was one of the many institutions that exploited the poor.

Of course, many of the most vehement defenders of the rights and desserts of the poor have also been religious organisations and individuals.

OMG HUMMAN NATUR IS LIKE SO AMBIVALANTE.

Cullion
23rd September 07, 06:59 PM
The Church was one of the many institutions that exploited the poor.

Of course, many of the most vehement defenders of the rights and desserts of the poor have also been religious organisations and individuals.

OMG HUMMAN NATUR IS LIKE SO AMBIVALANTE.

The devil watching over Lu and THX is going to look and sound exactly like you, but with an evil moustache.

DAYoung
23rd September 07, 07:04 PM
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n5/DAYoung_2006/EvilDAY.jpg

Lu Tze
23rd September 07, 07:06 PM
Nice.

ironlurker
23rd September 07, 07:26 PM
Ernst>Duchamp

kick
23rd September 07, 11:09 PM
It has been mentioned a few times that if there was no religion that there would be one less thing to fight about.

Consider this.

When I joined the Auistralian army, on the first day, along with gettting our heads shaved, and getting boots and cams, they also gave us dogtags.

BTW this in not a joke, although it sounds a bit like one

We lined up in a big line, and then they asked our name and serial number, then they asked our religion, and it was multiple choice, the army had only 3 approved answers that you could put on your dog tag, Catholic, Anglican or Protestant.

Most people went along fine, then the recruit 2 in front of me, says pentecostal or something like that, and the old staff seargent, stamps his dog tags Protestant, and he says I'm not Protestant, the sgt says, do you beleive in the Pope or the Church of England, he says no, then your protesting against them protestant, move along.

Then the guy directly in front of me says atheist, the sgt didn't miss a beat and says what kind of God don't you beleive in?



I think if there wasn't religion, people, would argue if they are humanists or evolutionists or hedonists, or find something else to argue about.

DAYoung
23rd September 07, 11:16 PM
Ernst>Duchamp

Quite possibly.

nihilist
24th September 07, 12:33 AM
What's this 'organic' atheism you speak of?

Of one's own volition.




You're not going to be saying 'cullion, I wish I'd listened'. You're going to be screaming it, impaled on a pitchfork of red-hot iron.
Thank you. that perfectly encapsulates the Christian mindset.

Gypsy Jazz
24th September 07, 03:33 AM
I don't know why this thread amuses me so much.

No one speaks for atheists as a whole since it's a fairly broad term. I don't know that it's too bold to say that what bothers atheists isn't so much the instituion of religion as much as it is unquestioned, and often faith based dogma. That's where you get into political/economic doctrines becoming "religion". The most pervasive instance of unquestioned dogmatic thought is by way of religion. There are many other culprits, but none as large and perhaps none as interesting to discuss.

Most aren't bothered by people holding beliefs that are deemed irrational or run contrary to their own, but it becomes a serious imposition when those beliefs start effecting their lives. Some might argue this is an inherent problem of democratic government, but that's rather besides the point.

What I would argue is that there is nothing positive that has come of dogmatic action that couldn't be done without such dogma, but quite a lot negative that has been done in the name of dogma that couldn't be done without. Certain movements thrived off of religious ideals, but could they really not have succeeded if not for faith? I don't fancy myself too eloquent or direct so perhaps this quote might sum this one up:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Stephen Weinberg

kick, that's a downright hilarious story. Again, what makes religion such a dangerous subsection of beliefs is that it often "can't be questioned". In reality any sort of outgroup mentality is going to harbour hatred, and I think it might help to break down as big a wall as religion is. Unfortunately I believe rather strongly outgroup mentality is a fundamental part of the human/animal mind, and only through strong social pressures can it be eliminated or at very least weakend.

AAAhmed46
24th September 07, 04:17 AM
Gotta disagree, to be able to do things in the name of religion that are evil, you have to have some sort of quirky qualities to begin with.

DAYoung
24th September 07, 04:25 AM
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Stephen Weinberg

That's a nice aphorism, but it's simply not true.

Gypsy Jazz
24th September 07, 04:43 AM
Gotta disagree, to be able to do things in the name of religion that are evil, you have to have some sort of quirky qualities to begin with.

Admittedly it's my fault for not being clearer. I don't think people with a strong propensity to do good instantly turn into evil sheep people the second they touch religion. I think it's a pretty powerful motivational tool though. I'd like to make clear when I used the word "religion" I am really talking about unquestionable dogma. I should really just stick to saying what I mean.

When highly devout people are confronted with decisions where faith (in dogma) has a lot of say, some really attrocious decisions have been made. Subscribers to "Christian Science" often deny others convential medicine, much like Scientologists deny psychiatrict medicine even to those in potentially life threatening situations. The very nature of the beast is that there exceptions can't be made according to the doctrine itself. It's not so simple as Weinberg says, but dogmatic faith in anything has been, and can be extremely powerful.

DAYoung, care to elaborate?

DAYoung
24th September 07, 04:49 AM
Admittedly it's my fault for not being clearer. I don't think people with a strong propensity to do good instantly turn into evil sheep people the second they touch religion. I think it's a pretty powerful motivational tool though. I'd like to make clear when I used the word "religion" I am really talking about unquestionable dogma. I should really just stick to saying what I mean.

When highly devout people are confronted with decisions where faith (in dogma) has a lot of say, some really attrocious decisions have been made. Subscribers to "Christian Science" often deny others convential medicine, much like Scientologists deny psychiatrict medicine even to those in potentially life threatening situations. The very nature of the beast is that there exceptions can't be made according to the doctrine itself. It's not so simple as Weinberg says, but dogmatic faith in anything has been, and can be extremely powerful.

DAYoung, care to elaborate?

I would, thanks.

First off, though, I think your move from 'religion' to 'unquestionable dogma' is a good one. It saves one of my objections.

But I also think your aphorism omits a great many evils, e.g. crimes of passion, crimes of economic deprivation, crimes of ambition, and so on. Sometimes good men do evil things, not because of unquestionable dogma, but because of hunger, love or unreachable aspirations.

And sometimes evil deeds are in the service of good (but no less evil for this), e.g. Brutus murdering his beloved Caesar. This wasn't done on religious grounds, but on explicit, well-founded principle (the empire he feared soon eventuated).

Cullion
24th September 07, 05:03 AM
Let's take a look at a religion which unambiguously motivates its followers to do 'evil'.

Satanism. Does somebody become a satanist because they are evil, or does satanism make them evil. Or is satanism not evil because they haven't started any wars and they encourage sexual freedom? I'm confused.

Help me Dr. Young.

AAAhmed46
24th September 07, 05:11 AM
...and although satanism is mostly an athiestic religion isn't it? The denial of gods existence?

Though i know it IS different from regular athiesm because it is in it's own, an ideology.


Something about how morals hold people back or that we are by nature beasts.....

Then again, isn't there more then one school of thought?

DAYoung
24th September 07, 05:18 AM
Let's take a look at a religion which unambiguously motivates its followers to do 'evil'.

Does it? Citations please.


Does somebody become a satanist because they are evil, or does satanism make them evil.

Perhaps both. See above.


Or is satanism not evil because they haven't started any wars and they encourage sexual freedom?

Er. Charles Manson didn't start any wars either.

WHY ARE YOU HURTING MY BRAIN?

Cullion
24th September 07, 05:25 AM
Does it? Citations please.

http://www.jammajup.co.uk/otherbooks/FF/houseofhell.jpg


Er. Charles Manson didn't start any wars either.

He did try though. Did you know that he wrote some of Guns'n'Roses' lyrics from his jail cell ?

I'm still not sure where this is going.

DAYoung
24th September 07, 05:27 AM
I am now convinced.

I bow to your superior idiocy, sir.

Gypsy Jazz
24th September 07, 05:30 AM
I would, thanks.

First off, though, I think your move from 'religion' to 'unquestionable dogma' is a good one. It saves one of my objections.

But I also think your aphorism omits a great many evils, e.g. crimes of passion, crimes of economic deprivation, crimes of ambition, and so on. Sometimes good men do evil things, not because of unquestionable dogma, but because of hunger, love or unreachable aspirations.

And sometimes evil deeds are in the service of good (but no less evil for this), e.g. Brutus murdering his beloved Caesar. This wasn't done on religious grounds, but on explicit, well-founded principle (the empire he feared soon eventuated).

Much thanks, I agree.

On the last point it could be argued that an evil deed done in the service of good is in fact good for its result. I've never read anything beyond very very brief summaries of most philosophers (excluding a few where I am a little better), but I imagine Kant and J.S. Mill or some other famous utilitarians might get in a boxing match over this. I say imagine most since that's what I'd like to see. I have no opinion on the matter since I've never given it too much thought.

At any rate good show. Weinberg is a physicist and perhaps should stick to physics.

DAYoung
24th September 07, 05:51 AM
Kant and Mill would box, but not over this one, I suspect. If the evil were violence against another human being, for example, both would probably find it abhorrent.

But yes, in the simpler versions of utilitarianism, you might assume that an evil could be committed for the sake of the greater good.

Gypsy Jazz
24th September 07, 06:05 AM
Kant and Mill would box, but not over this one, I suspect. If the evil were violence against another human being, for example, both would probably find it abhorrent.

But yes, in the simpler versions of utilitarianism, you might assume that an evil could be committed for the sake of the greater good.
I did offer the disclaimer that I have only extremely basic understanding of most philosophers/philosophy. I think more than anything I was enjoying the images in my head of historical figures boxing, and wanted to share. Other fantasy matchups include Martin Van Buren vs Chester A Arthur for the title of best mutton chops in U.S. presidential history. I never claimed to be mature, and hope I'll never have to.