Beyond Belief Science talking about religion

[Werg22]

Huckleberry, the conclusions most certainly do invalidate God in the biblical sense. If your 'religious text' is found to be in error, then its not the word of God. If its not the word of God its simply the word of man, and God cannot be the divine author of it. It seems that when shown wrong, you are holding on to whatever you can to rationalize a false ideology. What is so hard to believe that God is not real, anymore than thor or Zeus is not real? I am sure you would consider anyone that believes in thor to be crazy.

Though an atheist myself, I cannot help but to point at your flawed conceptions of philosophy and reason. If a presumed text from God is found to be in the wrong, it does not give us any information other than that alone. There are an infinite number of possible explanations; perhaps the text was perverted by man? perhaps God wants to fool us? perhaps it is the work of an entity other than God, but not human? Simply having chosen the answer makes your philosophy not any different than any other; it is perhaps truth, but this can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is certainly not immune to attack, as you seemingly fail to realize. Stop the pretense that your philosophy alone embodies logic and truth.

 

[Cyrus]

Though an atheist myself, I cannot help but to point at your flawed conceptions of philosophy and reason. If a presumed text from God is found to be in the wrong, it does not give us any information other than that alone. There are an infinite number of possible explanations; perhaps the text was perverted by man? perhaps God wants to fool us? perhaps it is the work of an entity other than God, but not human? Simply having chosen the answer makes your philosophy not any different than any other; it is perhaps truth, but this can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is certainly not immune to attack, as you seemingly fail to realize. Stop the pretense that your philosophy alone embodies logic and truth.

Thats the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo I have read yet (no offense). Perverted by man? This is making excuses to support something that has been demonstrated false. Give me a break.

 

[ShawnD]

ShawnD, do you even have any evidence at all that "culture" is responsible for the terror performed in the name of Islam?

Um yes? Who exactly do you think Scott Atran is? He's a world class anthropologist who studies the way terrorists think. He got up there and called out Sam Harris because Harris was making a bunch of assumptions that directly contradicted the research Scott Atran had done. That's what this whole debate is about.

 

[Moridin]

Again, you don't need to follow all beliefs of a group to be part of that group. Do all republicans think the way Bush does? Do all Muslims think like suicide bombers? Are all Star Trek nerds virgins? You don't need to agree with everything before you're considered part of the group.

Logical fallacy. Bush is not a doctrine within the republican party. If you believe that the old testament is symbolic, and that the death of Jesus on the cross is just symbolic, then you cannot properly call yourself a Christian. There is a logical cut-of point.

If you do not follow the religion you claim to have, you are not a member of it, just like capitalists cannot be considered communists.

How is the majority considered "selectively affirming"?

I've refuted that with the link to the Gallup Poll. You have shown zero evidence of this so called "majority". Read the news.

It seems like a pretty strong indicator of religion when the government census shows high percentages of Christians, and there's enough demand for Christian education that half of the publicly funded schools have a Christian theme to them.

Again, your entire argument is based on institutionalized bookmarking.

How do you secularize a religion? You're saying Christians don't blow themselves up because their religion is more secular, but religious and secular are exact opposites, by definition. When something is secular, it is no longer religious.

No, 'secular' simply means a separation of state and church or a more focus on the material world. Christians are more secular.

They don't blow themselves

Then you are forced to confess that the reason Muslims blow themselves up is not due to some arbitrary, vague "culture", but because of religion, since if it was "culture", we would see Buddhists blowing up Chinese people. This refuted your entire argument.

Closing the door is in itself very anti-science. Science is about debating things, disagreeing, people going in different directions on things. It would be doing humanity a disservice to shut the door on options and declare that it was in their best interest.

So you think that teaching that the Holocaust never happened is science? Boy, you get yourself in a lot of trouble here. Science is about determining the truth and attacking lies and misconception.

Then again, do you have evidence that destroying religion will fix world problems? Theocracy has been done, and it was terrible.

There is a universal correlation between secularization and high living standards. So far, you have presented zero evidence for any of your somewhat twisted cultural apologetics.

Then the opposite was done when USSR was officially an atheist state, and that was just as bad as theocracy. The one thing in common between those two is that neither allowed for dissent. Both were very tyranical. If you want to preserve your country's freedom then you'll allow people to have different ideas on things.

The USSR was not an "atheist" state, just as it wasn't a "a-thorist" or "a-unicornist" state. There was only one God for the people of the USSR, and that was Stalin. For hundreds of years, millions of Russians has been indoctrinated into the belief that the head of the state is a supernatural power. The Czar is not just the king, but stands between heaven and earth. What do you think happens when someone beat that supernatural power? You cannot even become a totalitarian dictator if you cannot already exploit a ready-made reservoir of human credulity and servility that is as big as that. Russian never experienced the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. It was the most religion states, not the more atheistic nations like England or France that fell to communism. In essence, it is a substitute for Messianism.

Don't forget Christian Hitler and his slaughter of 6 million Jews.

Though an atheist myself, but I cannot help from pointing at your flawed sense of reason. If a presumed text from God is found to be in the wrong, it does not give us any information other than that alone. There are an infinite number of possible explanations; perhaps the text was perverted by man? perhaps God wants to fool us? perhaps it is the work of an entity other than God, but not human?

The point is that it clearly falsifies the beliefs of the extremists. You can try to make ad hoc arguments all you want, the god of the fundamentalists still stays dead.

Simply having chosen the answer makes your philosophy not any different from another; it is perhaps truth, but this can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is certainly not immune to attack, as you seemingly fail to realize. Stop the pretense that you wield logic and truth.

People keep repeating that; it is almost like an irrational religion in itself. God(s) can be disproven by science, just like astrology, the notion that diseases are spread by witches rather than germs or denial of the Holocaust can.

 

[Werg22]

Thats the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo I have read yet (no offense). Perverted by man? This is making excuses to support something that has been demonstrated false. Give me a break.

It is as unlikely as the possibility of Aliens having built the Eiffel Tower, with the argument that nobody alive today was there to see its edification. But you are clearly missing the point. You can't argue that you're stance is irrefutably the only reasonable one because the inherent ideas of your philosophy can certainly be doubted, despite the ridicule these doubts may bear.

 

[Huckleberry]

Huckleberry, the conclusions most certainly do invalidate God in the biblical sense. If your 'religious text' is found to be in error, then its not the word of God. If its not the word of God its simply the word of man, and God cannot be the divine author of it. It seems that when shown wrong, you are holding on to whatever you can to rationalize a false ideology. What is so hard to believe that God is not real, anymore than thor or Zeus is not real? I am sure you would consider anyone that believes in thor to be crazy.

I don't have a religious text. Though there are many aspects of Christianity that are dear to me, I have no use for organized religion or strict adherence to scripture. I am also fond of other religions and philosophies, but again, I don't fit entirely into any of them. I really don't care if Noah was in a flood, or if man evolved from ape-like ancestors, or any other physical myths in any scripture. The intent of my posts were not originally to defend scripture. The intent was primarily to make a statement that the purpose of the lecture was not objective, and secondarily to voice my concern about what philosophy science would choose to replace the religious function within the human condition. I find it very odd that we are now discussing scripture, but that was exactly what I figured would happen when I said I wasn't going to reply the first time. If I didn't feel the need to correct gross misinterpretations about my character then I wouldn't be writing right now.

Some of my best friends are atheists. It has no effect on how I treat them. I often appreciate their point of view on religious matters just because they are unbiased. I feel a reassured when we talk because there is no prejudice; only understanding, honesty and freedom. Those are the kind of things that concern me, not some ink on flimsy, gold-trim paper.

 

[ShawnD]

Perverted by man? This is making excuses to support something that has been demonstrated false. Give me a break.

I think what he means is translated. Remember that translation is an interpretation, so somebody with a particular religious bias might interpret something incorrectly without knowing it. This is particularly bad with metaphors or common terms that describe the same thing. Example: a french guy I know asked "do you have a fire?" but what he was asking was if I had a lighter to light his cigarette. Jesus could say something like "I am the light" (metaphor) and it could be translated as "I emit visible radiation" (literal).

 

[Cyrus]

Converge what Moridin and I are saying Shawn. To be a Christian means you accept everything in the bible. To be a muslim means you accept ever last word in the qur-an. To be a jew every word in the torah. These interpretations are not up for debate and your picking and choosing. Its simply not.

If you pick and choose your NOT following the words of christ. I am sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Now, considering the fact that every word must be followed, in combination with the fact that many stories in the bible are historically wrong, and make scientifically false claims. You have a MAJOR problem with the credibilty of a CHRISTIAN god. Notice I said christian. We can rule out with GOOD reason that there is no Christian God as written in the bible.

The point is, you have to evalute the likelyhood of each Gods existence based on religious texts. If you want to believe in an Einsteinian God, more power to you. I can't disprove that, and I would fully support that type of God. (because that does not have the implications of social matters in the real world, its a private god). But you can't cherry pick what parts of the bible you want God to have said based on your own subjective morals at the time. (At the time meaning socially at the time).

 

[Werg22]

I think what he means is translated. Remember that translation is an interpretation, so somebody with a particular religious bias might interpret something incorrectly without knowing it. This is particularly bad with metaphors or common terms that describe the same thing. Example: a french guy I know asked "do you have a fire?" but what he was asking was if I had a lighter to light his cigarette. Jesus could say something like "I am the light" (metaphor) and it could be translated as "I emit visible radiation" (literal).

I wasn't giving an explicit reason as to why a religious text may contain fallacies. My sole declaration is that philosophy cannot be made rigorous by any means. In the matters we are discussing, there are no absolute truths so that we can arrive at a set of irrefutable statements. Philosophy is not mathematics; this is why there is place for debate whenever philosophy is concerned.

 

[Moridin]

Um yes? Who exactly do you think Scott Atran is? He's a world class anthropologist who studies the way terrorists think. He got up there and called out Sam Harris because Harris was making a bunch of assumptions that directly contradicted the research Scott Atran had done. That's what this whole debate is about.

Who exactly do you think Sam Harris is? He is a world class philosopher and has studied religion and its effects on society for 25+ years as well as getting a doctorate in neuroscience. He and Ayann Hirsi Ali called out Scott Atran, due to the fact that his personal ideology of cultural relativism does not fit the actual facts.

If someone is making assumptions, it is Scott Atran, who probably have not even been to the middle east and seen the destructive power of Islam, which means "submission".

 

[Moridin]

I wasn't giving an explicit reason as to why a religious text may contain fallacies. My sole declaration is that philosophy cannot be made rigorous by any means. In the matters we are discussing, there are no absolute truths so that we can arrive at a set of irrefutable statements. Philosophy is not mathematics; this is why there is place for debate whenever philosophy is concerned.

So you just tried to make an irrefutable statement that no irrefutable statements can be made?

 

[Cyrus]

I don't have a religious text.

Thats fantastic. Then I take it you mean an Eninsteinian God? As in, God is Nature and the Laws of the Universe? (And this is a much more interesting way of thinking of God for society, it incorporates a concept of God with science, reason, logic, and philosophy [and if you want art, music, history] but cuts away all the dogma, and restrictions on diet, sexuality, etc that are nothing but nonsense.)

Though there are many aspects of Christianity that are dear to me, I have no use for organized religion or strict adherence to scripture.

Of course, all religious texts have good things to them. But I am quick to point out that these morals are not something required to be given to us by god. They are in-fact, innate and found among animals as well. (Studies have actually shown this)

I am also fond of other religions and philosophies, but again, I don't fit entirely into any of them.

Sure, I like native americans and their harmony with the earth. I don't believe in there deeply religious mumbo jumbo, but that does not mean I don't like aspects of it.

I really don't care if Noah was in a flood, or if man evolved from ape-like ancestors, or any other physical myths in any scripture.

Careful, you might not care. But 40%+ of americans do care, and it can effect your childrens education.

The intent of my posts were not originally to defend scripture.

Gotcha.

The intent was primarily to make a statement that the purpose of the lecture was not objective, and secondarily to voice my concern about what philosophy science would choose to replace the religious function within the human condition.

Considering that many of the speakers have books on religion and its effects, I don't see how/why it should be an objective lecture. The point of the lecture was not to be objective.

I find it very odd that we are now discussing scripture, but that was exactly what I figured would happen when I said I wasn't going to reply the first time. If I didn't feel the need to correct gross misinterpretations about my character then I wouldn't be writing right now.

No gross misinterpretations. The reason it is brought up is because many of these texts, i.e. the Qur-an are literally the word of god, and must be evaluated.

Some of my best friends are atheists. It has no effect on how I treat them. I often appreciate their point of view on religious matters just because they are unbiased. I feel a reassured when we talk because there is no prejudice; only understanding, honesty and freedom. Those are the kind of things that concern me, not some ink on flimsy, gold-trim paper.

I'll settle for a steak dinner with a beer.

 

[Werg22]

So you just tried to make an irrefutable statement that no irrefutable statements can be made?

No, I never implied the statement is irrefutable in itself. Unlike some, I do not pretend my views to be untouchable by criticism.

 

[Moridin]

No, I never implied the statement is irrefutable in itself. Unlike some, I do not pretend my views to be untouchable by criticism.

Now you made even more statements of that sort! I do not pretend either, I know (since I can scientifically prove them).

 

[ShawnD]

Logical fallacy. Bush is not a doctrine within the republican party. If you believe that the old testament is symbolic, and that the death of Jesus on the cross is just symbolic, then you cannot properly call yourself a Christian. There is a logical cut-of point.

If you do not follow the religion you claim to have, you are not a member of it, just like capitalists cannot be considered communists.

Nobody actually interprets the bible as being literally true. You don't actually kill people because you find them working on a Sunday. You don't kill somebody because they're planting two kinds of crop on the same field. If this was happening and fundies were the ones killing those people then yeah you would have a point, but this currently does not happen, and that means the bible is up for interpretation even among the most radical Christians/Muslims.

I've refuted that with the link to the Gallup Poll. You have shown zero evidence of this so called "majority". Read the news.

You quoted a gallup poll that represents 1 backwards nation. Christians in European and the rest of the world laugh at the idea of young Earth creation. They tried that in Europe, but it failed miserably.

Again, your entire argument is based on institutionalized bookmarking.

And what are yours based on? My numbers are self reported and recorded by the government. Your numbers, which have never been presented, would then presumably come from some guy looking at other people and saying "oh yeah he's a christian for sure, look at the tie and everything." Either that or they would be self reported, just like mine.

Then you are forced to confess that the reason Muslims blow themselves up is not due to some arbitrary, vague "culture", but because of religion, since if it was "culture", we would see Buddhists blowing up Chinese people. This refuted your entire argument.

It also refutes your entire claim when there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world and only a small number of them have blown themselves up. You can't say Islam causes terrorism then add that it was only 0.0002% of Muslims participating in terrorism, or some other incredibly low percentage. Even 1% would mean over 10 million suicide bombers. I don't think you realize how big a billion is, because on the grand scale of things suicide bombers are a very small percentage of Muslims.

So you think that teaching that the Holocaust never happened is science? Boy, you get yourself in a lot of trouble here. Science is about determining the truth and attacking lies and misconception.

Strawman. Science finds the truth by allowing people to search for their own data for their own ideas. If you close the doors on things that can or cannot exist, you ultimately close off the possibility of finding new discoveries. You laugh at scientists who point satellite dishes towards space and search for ET, but part of science is doing silly things just to see what happens. You would stop laughing if they actually did find life in outer space, and people would stop saying it was a waste of time and money. Mainstream society thinks all kinds of people are crackpots, but sometimes it turns out to be true. Look at quantum physics. Did anybody actually expect that to be real?
If you're claiming you want all holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers to be silenced, then I would like to know what other kinds of books and materials you would want banned. I have a few extra armbands in my closet if you'd like to borrow them.

It was the most religion states, not the more atheistic nations like England or France that fell to communism. In essence, it is a substitute for Messianism.

Um no. State atheism. People in communist USSR and China were militant atheists who strongly opposed religion of any kind.
England had an official state sponsored religion called the Anglican Church.

There is a universal correlation between secularization and high living standards. So far, you have presented zero evidence for any of your somewhat twisted cultural apologetics.

Are you officially stating for the record that USSR and China have a higher standard of living than the US? They were, after all, more secular.

Don't forget Christian Hitler and his slaughter of 6 million Jews.

Plus 6 million other for a total of 12 million. Christian Hitler killed fewer people than atheist Stalin and atheist Mao.

 

[Werg22]

Now you made even more statements of that sort! I do not pretend either, I know (since I can scientifically prove them).

I'm not sure whether or not it has been shown that religion is negative. Could very well be. I never commented on it, and I'm not ready to, at the moment. My argument is against the notion that the ideas (and not the facts) presented here are outside of doubt's range. Clearly, I did not take a position in regards to the subject of discussion, nor do I wish to, fault of a better analysis.

 

[Moridin]

You quoted a gallup poll that represents 1 backwards nation. Christians in European and the rest of the world laugh at the idea of young Earth creation. They tried that in Europe, but it failed miserably.

Red herring. Now you are trying to avoid admitting that your assertion that the majority do not do it is wrong.

And what are yours based on? My numbers are self reported and recorded by the government. Your numbers, which have never been presented, would then presumably come from some guy looking at other people and saying "oh yeah he's a christian for sure, look at the tie and everything." Either that or they would be self reported, just like mine.

No, yours are not self reported, because they are simply a bookmark of people being born into institutions and do not reflect what they actually believe. The real test is to show the level of secularization in the country.

It also refutes your entire claim when there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world and only a small number of them have blown themselves up.

So? That would be because they do not follow their religion, and can thus not be called "Muslim", just like capitalists cannot be called communists.

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION! Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?

You can't say Islam causes terrorism then add that it was only 0.0002% of Muslims participating in terrorism, or some other incredibly low percentage.

The oppression of women and the threats of apostasy is widespread. I can say that Islam causes terrorism if its scriptures support it and people who are terrorists because terrorists due to the very fact of scriptures!

I don't think you realize how big a billion is, because on the grand scale of things suicide bombers are a very small percentage of Muslims.

Again, irrelevant (see above).

Strawman.Science finds the truth by allowing people to search for their own data for their own ideas. If you close the doors on things that can or cannot exist, you ultimately close off the possibility of finding new discoveries.

Now it is not, since you confessed it yourself.

P1: Shutting the door on an issue is anti-science
P2: The door is shut on whether or not the Holocaust took place
C: The teaching that Holocaust took place is anti-science

You are plunging deeper and deeper into irrationality, by your denial of the Holocaust.

Look at quantum physics. Did anybody actually expect that to be real?

Please. Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen, especially since you are logically denying the Holocaust.

If you're claiming you want all holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers to be silenced, then I would like to know what other kinds of books and materials you would want banned. I have a few extra armbands in my closet if you'd like to borrow them.

Yes, I have no problem actively contributing to keeping Holocaust deniers such as yourself and 9/11 conspirators out of education.

Um no. State atheism. People in communist USSR and China were militant atheists who strongly opposed religion of any kind.
England had an official state sponsored religion called the Anglican Church.

Again, there is no such thing as "state atheism", just like there is no such thing as "state athorism" or "state a-unicornism". Also, atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of god-belief. The USSR and China did not oppose religion, they where religions.

Are you officially stating for the record that USSR and China have a higher standard of living than the US? They were, after all, more secular.

No, they where not secular at all, since they had the same religious mentality as I shown earlier.

Plus 6 million other for a total of 12 million. Christian Hitler killed fewer people than atheist Stalin and atheist Mao.

Christian Hitler's actions lead to the death of 55 million. And let us not forget the crusades, the inquisition, the slaughter of native Americans, the forced conversion of northern Europe, witch trials, the genocide of blacks by the Catholics Church and so on.

Neither Stalin or Mao where atheists, since they considered themselves as Gods. Further note that correlation does not imply causality. Both Stalin and Mao where old-age men. That does not mean that the fact that they where men caused them to be dictators. Furthermore, since atheism is completely neutral, unlike Christianity or Islam, it does not contain any imperatives, so atheism cannot cause anything, by definition (unlike Christianity or Islam).

In total, religions have lead to the death of around 1 billion people.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

My argument is against the notion that the ideas (and not the facts) presented here are outside of doubt's range.

Now you just tried to make an infallible statement again.

 

[Huckleberry]

I'll settle for a steak dinner with a beer.

Ok, as long as you promise to play nice. That means when you ask me a question about religion and I answer with something you feel is nonsense you can laugh, but it has to be a jovial, friendly type laugh. Else I'm leaving you with the bill.

P.S. Not that it bears any relevence to anything, but yeah, something like an Einsteinien God; though I think he put much more effort into defining God than I ever will. For me it is the faith that is important. I'm uncertain of the nature of God, but I feel strongly that truth, life and virtue are what is important to him. (probably because those are important to me) When I speak of God, those are the things that I am usually referring to. I see the word of God as truth itself, and if it bears any resemblance to scripture then it is in the spirit of the written word, not the text. That goes for Thor as well as Allah

 

[Cyrus]

Hey, as long as you don't follow the three major religions, believe in God all you want!

My gripe is religion more than anything. I don't believe in God, but I believe in immortality. Newton, Ghandi, Dr. King, Einstein, Plato, King Tut, Hitler, Stalin etc. These people will forever be immortal (Good or bad) for their impact on society. Like the ancients in greece, people will still use their name over 2000 years after their death. If you want to be immoratal, you have to do something of that scale. Thats my definition of the afterlife. And its something everyone can strive for. Doing something greater than yourself in a positive way. That to me is much more noble than reading a holy book day and night until you die.

 

[Cyrus]

John allen paulos talked about statistics and mathematics, but I thought he was a terrible speaker.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3911445117068926975

 

[ShawnD]

Red herring. Now you are trying to avoid admitting that your assertion that the majority do not do it is wrong.

No, yours are not self reported, because they are simply a bookmark of people being born into institutions and do not reflect what they actually believe. The real test is to show the level of secularization in the country.

Fine, you win. Those other 100+ million people who claim to be Christians in Canada, France, UK, and Germany are all liars. They attend church merely to mock god, and that cross above the door is there for irony.

The oppression of women and the threats of apostasy is widespread. I can say that Islam causes terrorism if its scriptures support it and people who are terrorists because terrorists due to the very fact of scriptures!

Then I could say all Christians and Jews are slave-owning fascists. The bible does support slavery, yet slavery was made illegal in the US over 100 years ago, and it was never legal in Canada. What is your explanation for this? You'll just say over and over again that Islam is somehow different. I get the feeling there's some kind of veiled racism behind your opinions that makes you think Christians (mostly white) are fundamentally different from Muslims (mostly brown), and that's why one can be moderate while the other cannot be moderate. Actually, moderate is a bad term. I should say "one of those people who says they're religious on government surveys but practice common sense in their daily lives."

Now it is not, since you confessed it yourself.

P1: Shutting the door on an issue is anti-science
P2: The door is shut on whether or not the Holocaust took place
C: The teaching that Holocaust took place is anti-science

You probably suck at math. Basically what you're saying is that you can make some positive claim and anybody who disagrees with it is wrong, true? Well we might as well shut the door on string theory since some people disagree with that. We should stop keeping confidential government records just in case somebody tries to read them later and get some ideas or something. Hurr burning books and suppressing debate is a good idea. Maybe we should censor newspapers too just to make sure people don't start thinking.

You are plunging deeper and deeper into irrationality, by your denial of the Holocaust.

Thanks for insulting my Ukrainian Jewish heritage. You're trying to use that retarded patriotic logic of "dissent of the government makes you anti-american". Here you're saying research into a contrary hypothesis is immoral and should be stopped. So if somebody disagrees with something that is fundamentally understood, such as Newtonian physics, we should stop that person? Isn't that how things like String Theory come about? Disagreeing with the accepted theory?

Again, there is no such thing as "state atheism", just like there is no such thing as "state athorism" or "state a-unicornism". Also, atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of god-belief. The USSR and China did not oppose religion, they where religions.

Which basically agrees with what I said before. Allow me to quote myself:

They're still basing this on the assumption that humans won't just find another way to separate themselves. First we hate each other because we're a different color. Then it's because they're a different religion. Then it's because people in this area talk funny. Then it's because they want to be called Unified Atheist League instead of United Atheist Alliance. Stopping religion won't stop people from being idiots.

So basically China and USSR eliminated religion and immediately replaced it with... religion. I'm sure nobody saw that one coming

No, they where not secular at all, since they had the same religious mentality as I shown earlier.

They eliminated god but replaced it with something equally irrational. Isn't this a good example of how trying to eliminate organized religion doesn't work? Christianity went away, but blind patriotism showed up in its place. USSR can do no wrong. Long live USSR!

Christian Hitler's actions lead to the death of 55 million. And let us not forget the crusades, the inquisition, the slaughter of native Americans, the forced conversion of northern Europe, witch trials, the genocide of blacks by the Catholics Church and so on.

Absolutely. People do insane things and justify them with insane reasons. I assume Hitler's hatred of Jews was more directed towards "ethnic Jews" as opposed to the religion itself. He also hated Gypsies and Slavs even though Slavs were mostly Christian as well. His cleansing likely had very little to do with religion, but it is often passed off as being religiously motivated. Associating concentration camps with Christianity is as wrong as associating gulags with atheism. Crazy people are crazy no matter what religion they are. I don't think of suicide bombers as being islamic nutcases are much as they are nutcases. People who shoot American abortion doctors are flat out insane, regardless of whatever cult they follow. Ending religion will not stop terrorism, nor would it stop people who shoot abortion doctors. I put those on the same level as people who blow up animal testing labs because they support animal liberation. There doesn't seem to be an underlying religious reason for blowing up animal labs, but the tactics used are exactly the same as those who do terrorist acts for religious reasons.

Neither Stalin or Mao where atheists, since they considered themselves as Gods. Further note that correlation does not imply causality. Both Stalin and Mao where old-age men. That does not mean that the fact that they where men caused them to be dictators. Furthermore, since atheism is completely neutral, unlike Christianity or Islam, it does not contain any imperatives, so atheism cannot cause anything, by definition (unlike Christianity or Islam).

You're assuming that idealistic atheism is attainable. This sounds similar to people who claim USSR was not real communism and that communism is totally doable if <impossible circumstances> occur. Idealistic atheism will not happen. It will always create some new religion that immediately takes over where the old religion left off.

 

[Moridin]

Fine, you win. Those other 100+ million people who claim to be Christians in Canada, France, UK, and Germany are all liars. They attend church merely to mock god, and that cross above the door is there for irony.

No, there is nothing that says that they claim to be Christian or attend church. It simply says that at their birth, they where bookmarked by religious institutions.

Then I could say all Christians and Jews are slave-owning fascists. The bible does support slavery, yet slavery was made illegal in the US over 100 years ago, and it was never legal in Canada.

No, because that would be empirically false.

What is your explanation for this? You'll just say over and over again that Islam is somehow different.

Islam is different because its effects on society is greater; oppression of women, inequality, theocracy, threats against homosexuals and apostates are not rare in the Middle East, but frequent. Therein lies the difference.

I get the feeling there's some kind of veiled racism behind your opinions that makes you think Christians (mostly white) are fundamentally different from Muslims (mostly brown), and that's why one can be moderate while the other cannot be moderate.

Ad hominem.

Islam is not a race. Hundreds of millions of Christians in Africa are blacks, much more black than Muslims. Secularized, liberal Christians are fundamentally different from conservative fundamentalist Muslims. I do not see that many US Christians who actively oppress women, promote inequality, theocracy, threats against homosexuals or apostates. Do you? Muslims can certainly be secularized, but most Muslims are not. Most Christians are.

I am critical of religion, not religious people. I despise Christianity as much as I despise Islam. Unfortunately, the two religions have a vastly different effect on our modern society. The secular west has immobilized Christianity, whereas the Middle East nourishes Islamic theocracy. There are several harsh critics of Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq who is also "black".

You probably suck at math. Basically what you're saying is that you can make some positive claim and anybody who disagrees with it is wrong, true? Well we might as well shut the door on string theory since some people disagree with that. We should stop keeping confidential government records just in case somebody tries to read them later and get some ideas or something. Hurr burning books and suppressing debate is a good idea. Maybe we should censor newspapers too just to make sure people don't start thinking.

I noticed that you did not try to deny the fact that you think teaching that the Holocaust is anti-science. Please respond to this.

When there are clear scientific facts that contradict old religious myths from the iron age of humanity, myths is going out the door, just like we do not teach creationism or Holocaust denial is school. I have no problem censoring newspapers who incite violence by proclaiming that the Holocaust is a myth. But seeing as how you logically deny the Holocaust, you might oppose this?

Thanks for insulting my Ukrainian Jewish heritage.

There are plenty of Jews who, like you, deny the Holocaust, such as Yousef al-Khattab, formerly Joseph Cohen. I am not insulting anything; it is you who claim that promoting truth is somehow anti-science.

Here you're saying research into a contrary hypothesis is immoral and should be stopped.

The Holocaust happened. We have a massive amount of scientific evidence for it. Give up.

So if somebody disagrees with something that is fundamentally understood, such as Newtonian physics, we should stop that person? Isn't that how things like String Theory come about? Disagreeing with the accepted theory?

String theorists do not disagree with Newtonian Mechanics; they build on it. If someone disagrees and tries to shove his or her ideas into the school system without evidence or research, they should be stopped, yes.

So basically China and USSR eliminated religion and immediately replaced it with... religion. I'm sure nobody saw that one coming

Then your argument that the USSR and China somehow failed because they got rid of religion collapses. Naturally, you have to put science and reason in the place of religion.

They eliminated god but replaced it with something equally irrational. Isn't this a good example of how trying to eliminate organized religion doesn't work? Christianity went away, but blind patriotism showed up in its place. USSR can do no wrong. Long live USSR!

Eliminating organized religion by secularization, the separation of state and church, the promotion of science and reason certainly works. Just look at Sweden or Norway.

I assume Hitler's hatred of Jews was more directed towards "ethnic Jews" as opposed to the religion itself. He also hated Gypsies and Slavs even though Slavs were mostly Christian as well. His cleansing likely had very little to do with religion, but it is often passed off as being religiously motivated.

The Holocaust was a fundamentally Christian enterprise and had everything to do with religion. It was built on the Christian persecution and slaughter of Jews for 1500+ years. Hitler never repudiated his membership of the Catholics Church and prayer was said for him, on his birthday, by the Vatican, even at the end. According to the Catholic historian Paul Johnson, 50% of Luftwaffe / SS where confessional catholics, and none of them where ever threatened with excommunication.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler

This was worn by all soldiers ("God is with us")

One of the favorite books of Hitler's party was Martin Luther's On The Jews and Their Lies.

Steigmann-Gall, Richard "The Holy Reich: Nazi conception of Christianity, 1919-1945," (Cambridge University Press, 2003) is an excellent book on the topic.

Associating concentration camps with Christianity is as wrong as associating gulags with atheism. Crazy people are crazy no matter what religion they are,

When Hitler's actions was specifically motivated by Christianity and Christian doctrine, such as association cannot be wrong.

People who shoot American abortion doctors are flat out insane, regardless of whatever cult they follow.

What if they had not been indoctrinated into Christianity? Do you think they would have done it anyways?

According to a Federal Bureau of Prisons report in 1997, ~83% of the inmates in prison are Christians (about the same percentage of the population are Christians), but only 0.2 % are atheists/agnostic/freethinkers (corresponding to ~8%). Christians are severely overrepresented in American jails over atheists.

There doesn't seem to be an underlying religious reason for blowing up animal labs, but the tactics used are exactly the same as those who do terrorist acts for religious reasons.

Again, where are the Buddhist suicide bombers? The reason there are Islamic suicide bombers and not Buddhist, is because martyrdom plays a central part in Islamic theology, whereas it does not do so in Buddhist philosophy.

You're assuming that idealistic atheism is attainable. This sounds similar to people who claim USSR was not real communism and that communism is totally doable if <impossible circumstances> occur. Idealistic atheism will not happen. It will always create some new religion that immediately takes over where the old religion left off.

Atheism is simply the lack of god-belief ("a-" without, no; theism = god-belief). If by ideal atheism, you mean a secular country that emphasize democracy, reason and evidence, it is very much attainable; Sweden and Norway are pretty much there.

A communist state would, ideologically, not have classes or a state, but communism is practically impossible (not to mention both empirically false and intellectually bankrupt).

 

[ShawnD]

I need to admit I'm wrong on some of this stuff. I saw this youtube video and realized that I just can't relate to Americans. On my end it seems like there is a lot of moderation in religion because religious people I've met are generally very tolerant. Even the ones who went as far as only listening to christian rock and christian radio were very open to other world views. Americans I'm debating with are coming from the world in that video. We might as well be on different planets.

 

[Art]

Again, where are the Buddhist suicide bombers? The reason there are Islamic suicide bombers and not Buddhist, is because martyrdom plays a central part in Islamic theology, whereas it does not do so in Buddhist philosophy.

I suggest you research jibakutai ('the great suicide mission') practiced by the overwhelmingly buddhist Japanese since the time of Kusunoki Masashige 1336 and exemplified by the Kamikaze missions of WW2.


p.s. How has Cyrus managed yet again to start an anti-religion thread

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, its a thread on the beyond belief lectures that has important scientists talking about religion in society with links (unlike your plane thread). Take notes art.

Its about the science of religion, and how the two are increasingly in opposition.

 

[Art]

Actually, its a thread on the beyond belief lectures that has important scientists talking about religion in society with links (unlike your plane thread). Take notes art.

Its about the science of religion, and how the two are increasingly in opposition.

Important scientists can talk about religion all they like but I understood religious discussions weren't allowed on here not least because this thread, although ostensibly dressed in 'the emperor's new clothes', like your others quickly degenerate into mindless Muslim bashing

 

[Cyrus]

No one is midlessly bashing muslims. Apparently, you have not wached the videos or kept up with the discussion. I love how you come in here with nothing better to do than try to lock my thread - go get a hobby. I would start with Infadel, by Ayaan Hirsi ali (former muslim).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2606255929315924267&q=Hirsi+ali+ayaan&total=208&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[Gokul43201]

Jibakutai, and virtually everything else stemming from Bushido, has one important requirement: (crudely) to not fight an unequal. Masashige went on what was essentially a suicide mission against the armies of an opposing shogunate. The WWII kamikaze flew at warships of the opposing navy. To my knowledge, the use of jibakutai on civilian populations was rare.

 

[Art]

No one is midlessly bashing muslims. Apparently, you did have not wached the videos or kept up with the discussion. I love how you come in here with nothing better to do than try to lock my thread - go get a hobby. I would start with Infadel, by Ayaan Hirsi ali (former muslim).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2606255929315924267&q=Hirsi+ali+ayaan&total=208&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Perhaps it is you not following your own thread

Then you are forced to confess that the reason Muslims blow themselves up is not due to some arbitrary, vague "culture", but because of religion, since if it was "culture", we would see Buddhists blowing up Chinese people.

and even claims that suicide bombing is so synonymous with the Muslim religion any Muslim who is not a suicide bomber is not a true Muslim

So? That would be because they do not follow their religion, and can thus not be called "Muslim", just like capitalists cannot be called communists

and you claim this isn't mindless Muslim bashing. Give me a break...

As for your own contribution to anti-religion

Huckleberry, the conclusions most certainly do invalidate God in the biblical sense. If your 'religious text' is found to be in error, then its not the word of God. If its not the word of God its simply the word of man, and God cannot be the divine author of it. It seems that when shown wrong, you are holding on to whatever you can to rationalize a false ideology. What is so hard to believe that God is not real, anymore than thor or Zeus is not real? I am sure you would consider anyone that believes in thor to be crazy.

 

[Art]

Jibakutai, and virtually everything else stemming from Bushido, has one important requirement: (crudely) to not fight an unequal. Masashige went on what was essentially a suicide mission against the armies of an opposing shogunate. The WWII kamikaze flew at warships of the opposing navy. To my knowledge, the use of jibakutai on civilian populations was rare.

The request was

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION! Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?

the target in this context is irrelevant.

 

[Cyrus]

Perhaps it is you not following your own thread and even claims that suicide bombing is so synonymous with the Muslim religion any Muslim who is not a suicide bomber is not a true Muslim and you claim this isn't mindless Muslim bashing. Give me a break...

As for your own contribution to anti-religion

Art, if you have nothing better to do, I suggest you get lost. I am not wasting any more time on you trying to provoke me. Yes, I contributed to anti religion because that was the point of what the conference was about. Maybe you should pay attention and read before yapping away looking foolish. See, here is why I don't respect you anymore Art: because you make wild claims, and many blatant anti-ameircan claims in the politics section, with no more reason than to blame the US. You just like to argue and provoke people lately. Art, you're a smart guy; but, its time for you to grow up.

PS, don't quote Moridin and say I said it. You need help. Leave me alone.

 

[Art]

Art, if you have nothing better to do, I suggest you get lost. I am not wasting any more time on you trying to provoke me. Yes, I contributed to anti religion because that was the point of what the conference was about. Maybe you should pay attention and read before yapping away looking foolish.

PS, don't quote Moridin and say I said it. You need help.

Cyrus I find your comments on religion offensive. I have never made any attempt whatsoever to convert you to my beliefs nor have I ridiculed what you believe or do not believe in. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

edit Please don't lie Cyrus. I never attributed Moridin's comments to you, I provided them as examples of Muslim bashing to show that you did not appear to have been following the posts in your own thread. Please detail the anti-American posts I have made in PW&A. When originally accused of that it was in relation to my anti-war, anti-GWB views but as the vast majority of Americans now agree with my viewpoint does that make them anti-American too??

 

[Cyrus]

My comments are in line with the talks of what was said and held by the scientists in the conference I have linked. If you find it offensive, that's too bad. I am not here to please you. Now, if want to contribute to what was said in the conference, then go ahead. Otherwise, leave. I am out of patience for you waltzing in here uninformed and barking at me.

As for respect, go read the first chapter of Dawkins, called undeserved respect. How you can question anyones reasons for belief in any subject and their reasons for belief, other than religion, as if it is somehow something offensive to question. Why do you think you get a special pass on criticism for religious beliefs and get to play the 'im offended' card when someone does?

If you have issue with Zeus or Thor, go watch the video on Richard Dawkins talk on religion. Its taken straight from his mouth at the talks.

Also, why do you quote questions asked by one person a few pages back with answers from someone to a different person? Do you like to misquote people Art? See what I mean by provoking others. You just did it to Gokul. Seriously, get real.

Q: Did you even watch a single lecture video posted?

Also, muslim bashing? Did you miss the portion on christianity? Or are you picking and choosing what was said to provoke me Art?

 

[Art]

My comments are in line with the talks of what was said and held by the scientists in the conference I have linked. If you find it offensive, that's too bad. I am not here to please you. Now, if want to contribute to what was said in the conference, then go ahead. Otherwise, leave. I am out of patience for you waltzing in here uninformed and barking at me.

If you have issue with Zeus or Thor, go watch the video on Richard Dalkins talk on religion. Its taken straight from his mouth at the talks.

Also, why do you quote questions asked by one person a few pages back with answers from someone to a different person? Do you like to misquote people Art? See what I mean by provoking others. You just did it to Gokul. Seriously, get real.

Q: Did you even watch a single lecture video posted?

Also, muslim bashing? Did you miss the portion on christianity? Or are you picking and choosing what you want to provoke me with Art?

You appear to have a serious reading comprehension problem Cyrus so I'll explain it to you. I responded to a post by Moridin. Gokul then replied to my reponse and so I replied to him quoting the context of my original response. If you still do not understand it perhaps you could ask a friend to explain it to you. Btw are you suggesting that because you and/or others slate Christianity as well as Islam that makes it all okay?? BTW I'm a Christian..

 

[Cyrus]

Art, for the last time. Please contribute or leave. I am trying my best here to deal with you.

 

[Cyrus]

Anyways, I thuoght this talk was somewhat interesting. The first speakers Q&A was not bad on the evolution of morality. I thought she made a good point about morality being taught to God in the one example she cites from the bible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6288223549248832193

The second speaker (Loyal Rue) is actually a professor of theology. I am just starting that portion, so it should be interesting to hear from the other side.

 

[Evo]

Locking pending moderation decision.