Atheist Genocide

[varkam]

Every now and then around here, there's some sort of pissing contest between atheists and theists about 'which is worse - religion or atheism'. Of course, the usual suspects are rounded up such as the inquisition, the holocaust, Stalin, Mao, etc. Here's an interesting snippet regarding such 'rational' regimes and genocide:

It is true that there are millions of people whose faith moves them to perform extraordinary acts of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. The help rendered to the poor by Christian missionaries in the developing world demonstrates that religious ideas can lead to actions that are both beautiful and necessary. But there are far better reasons for self-sacrifice than those that religion provides. The fact that faith has motivated many people to do good things does not suggest that faith is itself a necessary (or even a good) motivation for goodness. It can be quite possible, even reasonable, to risk one's life to save others without believing any incredible ideas about the nature of the universe.

By contrast, the most monstrous crimes against humanity have invariably been inspired by unjustified belief (emphasis mine). This is nearly a truism. Genocidal projects tend to to reflect the rationality of their perpetrators simply because there are no good reasons to kill peaceful people indiscriminately. Even where such crimes have been secular, they have required the egregious credulity of entire societies to be brought off. Consider the millions of people who were killed by Stalin and Mao: although these tyrants paid lip service to rationality, communism was little more than a political religion. At the heart of it's apparatus of repression and terror lurked a rigid ideology, to which generations of men and women were sacrificed. Even though their beliefs did not reach beyond this world, they were both cultic and irrational. To cite only one example, the dogmatic embrace of Lysenko's "socialist" biology--as distinguished from the "capitalist" biology of Mendel and Darwin--helped pave the way for tens of millions of deaths from famine in the Soviet Union and China in the first part of the twentieth century.

Source: The End of Faith. Sam Harris. pp. 78-79

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. No fair!

Calling Communism a political "religion"! That's like the theist's big ace in the hole!!! It might have some of the elements of a religion, but it doesn't have God.

I haven't read Harris's book, just snippets here. But he seems to be moving in a direction of kinda like maybe thinkin' that perhaps maybe we oughta just, you know, maybe kinda should perhaps (only half sayin' but you know what I mean) outlaw religion all together? And that freaks me out because it 1)would infringe upon my right to worship whom I please; and 2)it makes even fascism look good. We just can't go there. He thinks he's right. I think I'm right. Why do we argue it? Just give me my fig tree and vine and leave me alone and I'll leave him alone.

But when he starts this talk, he falls right into the big giant brain hole that has snatched up the fundamentalists. DO IT MY WAY! OR DIE!

I don't like that.

[greyl]

2. The nature of organized religion is worlds away from

personal choices such as wardrobe, and Harris has never advocated laws forbidding personal choices.

He champions loud, intelligent voices in favor of reason, with a reduction in the typical gentility that the religions in majority have enjoyed for several thousand years.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. Well, I respect your views

so I'll buy that and get the book from the library so I know what he's talking about.

I will say this: fundamental Christianity is the worst thing to happen to the faith. At least in my life. I grew up going to church every Sunday and never once told a person I would pray for them. Simply not done. You don't wear it on your sleeve! Church was for Sunday. And very, very personal.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. Re-reading your post, greyl

and while I promise to read the book this summer, could you elaborate on "typical gentility that the religions in majority have enjoyed.."

I'm confused by what typical gentility is.

[greyl]

26. The silent deference many nonbelievers

feel they need to extend to believers, because it's generally socially unacceptable to pose hard questions regarding someones faith. It spans from not speaking up while everyone else at the table is saying grace, to not rushing to Galileo's defense. To be sure, altruism isn't always the reason for the freedom of thought voices to remain silent in the face of majority authority. Frequently, it's simply the pervasiveness of that majority. Who wants to bark while the choir is singing?

Richard Dawkins and Douglas Adams made some compelling statements about the issue:

"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Those of us who have renounced one or another of the three "great" monotheistic religions have, until now, moderated our language for reasons of politeness. Christians, Jews and Muslims are sincere in their beliefs and in what they find holy. We have respected that, even as we have disagreed with it.

continued[/div

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. Okay, thanks. I get it

Now, about the grace issue (which I know is just an example)... if it were my table, and I was saying grace and they were atheists and started in bashing belief it would be bad manners. I have said grace many times when I knew there were atheists at the table, but we don't do the hand-holding thing, so all they need to do is just sit.

However, it doesn't extrapolate evenly because if I'm an atheist and my neighbor is getting ready to shoot someone else in the name of his religion, I need to speak up and speak up loudly.

I'm looking forward to getting this book because I think that there are some things I'm not going to agree with. I like that.

[greyl]

69. I agree, it would be inappropriate to bash belief

at the moment others are bowing their heads to perform that ritual.
I was speaking of silently going along with it. You know, acting like you're praying too and never breathing a word about your true feelings. It's not a huge deal, but meaningful, magnitudes of being a vegetarian at Thanksgiving. "You have to have some turkey!"

I suppose one decent option would be announce ones feelings well before dinner. :)

[bloom]

117. Sam Harris encourages people to be intolerant of religion.

I don't think that is reasonable.

[Inland]

4. That's an excellent point.....

It's pretty clearly setting up definitions to make the point that religion is bad...because even belief systems that are officially atheist and hostile to religion get called a "religion" by analogy. I'm not sure if it's the fact that there is a belief system that is supposed to be analogous to a religion, or the fact that bad things are done that is analogous to religion. But if it's a belief and it causes people to do bad things, it's a "religion". Which, conveniently enough, leaves clean and pure the only "ism" that is to a belief like a bald man is to hair.

It's hard to find a way to saddle religion with the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot, but all you have to do is start with the premise that people doing bad things pursuant to politics = religion and suddenly they too end up religious. Not very useful for anything except the usual point scoring, IMO.

[catbert836]

20. Stalin and Pol Pot were both influenced by religion a great deal.

Stalin only turned revolutionary when he realized that he would never get far being a Russian Orthodox priest, and left the seminary. Pol Pot was educated in both Buddhist monasteries and Roman Catholic parochial schools, and was extremelyy devoted to Mahayana Buddhism early in his life.

But I won't go so far as to say their religious upbringing caused their campaigns of terror. It was just one factor that would eventually lead them to do those terrible things. Their fanatacism for religion would evetually be rechanneled into the communist revolution and other disastrous exploits.

Now that we've got that out of the way, we can turn our attention to belief systems. I think any reasonable person would agree with me that being a communist requires you to believe a few things, such as dialectical materialism and the labor theory of value, as well as communism being the best government/economic system for all people. Therefore, it an properly be called a belief system. Stalin and Pol Pot were proponents of extremely warped versions of Marxian communism to which they were greatly devoted, and their crimes were commited in the name of that communism, not atheism. Their beliefs could not be called a religion, but their devotion and fanatacism for these beliefs, which resulted in the Great Purge and Year Zero, respectively, could certainly be compared to what religion is known to have inspired for its followers.

[Inland]

21. You can only compare it to "religion" in that there's a belief.

The only common denominator is that there was a belief, whether it's a belief founded on science, religious dogma, personal observation, or whatever. To call it a religion, or pretend that devotion to dogma is learned from religion, is simply nonsense. If Stalin learned devotion to dogma from the religious school, how come he managed to unload a religious dogma for a dogma opposed to religion? Apparently, he didn't really learn the lessons of dogma until later.

So of course marxism is a belief system. It's a belief system made by, for, and enforced violently by, atheists under the guise of rationality and science.

Ergo, to lump marxism in with religion is quite a feat. The OP's implied taxonomy is that any strongly held belief THAT IS WRONG is a form of religion, which is both incorrect and insulting.

Therefore there's only atheism that is both an *ism* and a not-belief, by definition, which has no characteristics beyond not believing in a deity. Of course nobody killed anybody over atheism. Nobody did anything with atheism by itself. Asking what someone does with atheism is like asking a bald man how he styles his hair.

[catbert836]

22. It isn't nonsense.

Devotion to dogma is most often found in and learned from religion. Stalin and Pol Pot were just two people who learned this devotion from religion, and it later worked disastrous results.

As I've said before, Stalin dropped out of the Russian Orthodox seminary when he realized that he would never go as far as he wanted to by being a priest. After he dropped out, he read some Marx, and the rest followed. His devotion to his own warped version of Marxism became just as fanatical as his former devotion to Russian Orthodoxy. He learned this type of devotion from religion, and it was simply rechanneled into Marxism after he lost his faith.

And I never said Marxism should be lumped in with religion, but the the two belief systems can certainly have some of the same effects.

[Inland]

24. Sure seems like nonsense.

If Stalin and Pol Pot learned devotion to dogma, then they sure didn't learn it in the schools of the religions they rejected. It's pretty convenient, I suppose, to assume that the only thing taht Stalin and Pol Pot learned was to be devoted TO SOMETHING.....apparently, even when someone manages to dump the wrong belief of religion, religion is still to blame for their latching onto the wrong belief of marxism.

Even Stalin losing his faith and attaching himself to a scientifically based anti religion ideology isn't enough to blame something besides religion, because it is religion that puts devotion as the hightest value...except when it doesn't, for example, by killing people who devotedly believe in the wrong religion. Similarly, religion is wrong because it deals in power, except when it doesn't, in which case it's to blame for not being as big as Stalin's ambition and leading him to attach himself to marxism. Sure looks like religion is just another word for "bad".

Turns out, religion is either being lumped in with communism or blamed for it..well, not blame for marxism, that would be unfair. Just blamed for the worst parts of it.

[catbert836]

25. I've said it before and I'll say it again

I'M NOT BLAMING COMMUNISM/MARXISM (OR THEIR ILL EFFECTS) ENTIRELY ON RELIGION!!!!!

Once again: religion-taught devotion to dogma was just one factor that led Stalin and Pol Pot to the massacre of millions. Here's why:

If Stalin and Pol Pot learned devotion to dogma, then they sure didn't learn it in the schools of the religions they rejected.

Since they both had devoutly religious upbringings, it seems logical to say that it is during that time, in the seminary, monastery or whatever, they learned devotion to the dogma of their religion. This was later rechannelled into their screwball brands of Marxism.

It's pretty convenient, I suppose, to assume that the only thing taht Stalin and Pol Pot learned was to be devoted

I never said that.

Even losing his faith and attaching himself to a scientifically based anti religion ideology isn't enough to blame something besides religion.

I've said many times that religion-taught devotion to dogma was just one factor that made Stalin and Pol Pot into what they became.

apparently, even when someone manages to dump the wrong belief of religion, religion is still to blame for their latching onto the wrong belief of marxism.

I never said that they latched on to the wrong forms of either religion or Marxism, but that's beside the point. Religion is partly to blame because it gave Stalin et al fanatical devotion to religion, which eventually became fanatical devotion to Marxism.

I'll make this very simple for you:

Religion + Devotion to Dogma = Devotion to Religious dogma
Devotion to religious dogma - religion = devotion to dogma (dormant)
Devotion to dogma + Marxism= Devotion to Marxian dogma

I'm off to bed. Good night.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

37. I didn't mischaracterize your position at all.

Even making religion partly to blame for the excesses of an officially atheist state with an officially atheist ideology and run by an atheist, who persecuted the religious, is quite simply ridiculous. You just took a perceived character flaw of Stalin and blamed it on a religious background.

I wonder how religion gets blamed for the second generation of communists. Or Mao. Who knows, and who cares.

[catbert836]

75. A percieved flaw?

Any sane person who knows anything about Stalin would know his fanatical devotion to his warped form of Marxism was more than a perceived flaw. He learned fanatical devotion in the seminary, and it stayed with him as he progressed from ultraconservative Russian Orthodoxy to his warped version of Marxism.

You've said several times that I'm blaming Stalin on religion, and I suppose in some way I am. But religion was just ONE factor that made him what he became. See any of my replies to you on this thread for reasons why this is so. If you're not so inclined, here it is again:

Religion + Devotion to Dogma = Devotion to Religious dogma
Devotion to religious dogma - religion = devotion to dogma (dormant)
Devotion to dogma + Marxism= Devotion to Marxian dogma

And I didn't blame religion for the entire Soviet government under Stalin, which you seem to be saying. I blame it, once again, PARTLY for the man in charge of it.

You did indeed mischaracterize my position, but it hardly matters now. What I've been trying to do is have a good, intelligent debate, which you're making impossible.

[Inland]

76. Learned fanatical devotion to what at the monastery?

After all, it wasn't fanatical devotion to religion. You are telling me that he learned a character trait of fanatical devotion, which apparently only kicked in when he became an atheist. So he was a good atheist but for the bad character trait of fanaticism, which he learned from religion.

Well, how convenient.

Of course, Stalin's problem wasn't that he was a fanatic at all. It's that he was a stone cold killer. But I suppose that he learned THAT in the seminary too, as did Lenin and Molotov.

Poor Trotsky, being the cosmopolitan pf jewish descent, probably has to be the victim in this story, right? Because religion bad, marxism okay as long as you aren't FANATICAL about it.

[catbert836]

79. There you go again.

You are telling me that he learned a character trait of fanatical devotion, which apparently only kicked in when he became an atheist. So he was a good atheist but for the bad character trait of fanaticism, which he learned from religion.

My position has been very clear. Stalin learned fanatical devotion to Russian Orthodoxy in the seminary, and after he lost his faith, his fanatical devotion Russian Orthodoxy was replaced by fanatical devotion to Marxism.
And whether he was "a good atheist" is beside the point.

Of course, Stalin's problem wasn't that he was a fanatic at all. It's that he was a stone cold killer. But I suppose that he learned THAT in the seminary too, as did Lenin and Molotov.

Yes, that was his main character flaw. But if it hadn't combined with his fanatical devotion to Marxism, as well as MANY other factors, he might have just ended up being a no-account criminal, living in ignorance in provincial Georgia.

Poor Trotsky, being the cosmopolitan pf jewish descent, probably has to be the victim in this story, right? Because religion bad, marxism okay as long as you aren't FANATICAL about it.

You're putting words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with the subject.

[Inland]

94. I know what you are saying. It's just silly, that's all.

You say he learned fanatical devotion to russian orthodoxy, but of course, he didn't, if he lost his faith. You just can't conceive of an atheist who is dogmatic and fanatic, while you find it really easy to conceive of a religious person that is.

Not so different from the OP.

[Goblinmonger]

115. You've never heard

of someone replacing one addiction with another. Do you think it is just a coincidence that SO many people at AA meetings smoke and/or drink coffee? Pretty common phenomenon. Never heard of people gaining a lot of weight when they stop smoking? And I don't mean smoking heroin. The replace the craving for nicotine with food.

Stop being so obtuse.

[Inland]

122. I've never heard of addiction being taught at religious school.

Or fanaticism being a learned character trait.

You forget, the purpose of this entirely speculative line of guessing of what happened to stalin is to blame religion for the acts of an atheist, with an ideology that included atheism, for his acts that included persecuting religious people. Therefore one has to assert, as my correspondent did, that Stalin learned from religious school to be a fanatic russian orthodox, but then managed to overcome his fanaticism to become an atheist, but not so much to be an atheist free from fanaticism. Nobody cares if Stalin was of a fanatic bent if it is just inherent to his personality and not caused by religion.

It's pretty silly, even without pointing out the assumption that Stalin was taught "fanaticism" at religious school.

If one doesn't have the pre-existing conception that all religion is bad, one wouldn't make the assumption about Stalin being fanatically religious (perhaps because that's redundant to some minds?) much less engage in all the frankly silly argument that follows. I fully understand the argument. It's just a load of hokum put forward for a purpose.

[Goblinmonger]

132. Obtuse, obtuse, obtuse

You do know that I am on to you. You do everything you can to direct the argument from it's original premise by purposely arguing about the most inane crap that tangentially relates to the previous post.

Sam Harris is not trying to say that religion caused Stalin, though he might. Just not in that excerpt.

[Inland]

135. "On to you". Errr....that's nice. nt

[Goblinmonger]

138. There are only a few explanations

for your endless spiral of threads into the irrelevant. The fact that it is a deliberate tactic by you is the most flattering. Why else do you bring a discussion of Sam Harris's views on religion into a discussion of addition at seminaries. You take the most inane portion of a post and blow it up. Then from the post that reponds to that, you rinse, rather, and repeat.

[Inland]

139. Read upthread. I didn't introduce the subject of seminaries.

That would be post number 20, which was a post trying to explain why religion has a share of blame for atheist tyrants with an atheist ideology. I note that another person accused me of introducing the subject of atheist regimes, which, of course, is the OP itself.

I guess it's your fault for jumping in without any concept of the context of the discussion and then blame me for changing the subject. But no, you are going to blame it on me. Because "you're on to me" or whatever dark insinuation you drop into a thread.

But we all know that the point is, you've got only "one reason" for everything. When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Stop making personal attacks on me. It's flamebait.

[Goblinmonger]

140. It seems interesting that you

talk about personal attacks when the sentence before that is this:

But we all know that the point is, you've got only "one reason" for everything. When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

That sounds AS MUCH as, if NOT MORE of, a personal attack on me than I ever said about you. Luke 4:23.

[Inland]

141. No apology from you for wrongly accusing me

of bringing up the subject of seminaries and then making dark insinuations about the reasons, all not flattering to me. Instead, you start taking the fact that you were wrong, and that I called you on it, and that I don't care for your insinuations, as a personal attack.

Clearly, you are trying to be irritating for the sake of being irritating. Flamebait. Goodbye.

[Goblinmonger]

142. .

:hi:

[catbert836]

147. Goblinmonger's right.

you're being obtuse.

I'll explain this one more time, for good measure.

Stalin went to the seminary, because he wanted to become a Russian Orthodox priest. Back in early 1900s Georgia, there wasn't any progressive religious instruction like we have today. Instead, he was taught that the Bible was the absolute literal word of God, a teaching he accepted fullheartedly at the time. He became quite devoted to his religion during these times.
But Stalin was also amitiuos, and he realized that life as a priest in a backwater territory of the Tsarist Russia wasn't going to lead him to big things. So he dropped out of the seminary, and looked for some direction in his life. It came in the form of Marx. Now, instead of being fanatically devoted to the Russian Orthodoxy, he was fanaticatically devoted to Marxism. It's quite simple to see why the psychological need to be devout about SOMETHING copuld be ingrained into you at an early age, and when that thing is gone, you replace it with something else. As I've said:

Religion + Devotion to Dogma = Devotion to Religious dogma
Devotion to religious dogma - religion = devotion to dogma (dormant)
Devotion to dogma + Marxism= Devotion to Marxian dogma

And that's all I'll say. I've explained this far too many times, and my patience doesn't extend to doing it any more.

[Inland]

150. Great. Don't explain it again, because the problem isn't my understanding

It's that it is silly. Silly, as in assuming how Stalin was taught (already a little surprised that you assumed he was taught the bible was the absolute literal word of god), and then this little fairy tale as to how a religious education made Stalin susceptible to be overly devoted to any particular creed...except religion.

I mean, you don't even accept the possibility that Stalin learned fanatic devotion from any other source. Don't you think that indoctrination into a marxist group is it's own source of devotion? No, of course not. That possibility could never occur. It could never simply be, Stalin really, really like Marxism and that marxism had it's own problems.

All someone has to do is not start from the premise that religion and only religion causes fanatic devotion, and your entire story looks like an argument pulling itself up by it's own bootstraps, presuming religion is everyone's original sin, equating bad with religion, and implicitly making communism okay excetp to the extent that some religious minded people like Stalin and Lenin and Pol Pot, who were atheists but religiously minded anyway, got all fanatical and bloody about it. It's an explanation based on premises that are the same as the explanation.

Yes, indeed, don't make it again. It's silly.

[catbert836]

151. Great.

You've once again refused to even have an intelligent discussion. Here I go:

It's that it is silly. Silly, as in assuming how Stalin was taught (already a little surprised that you assumed he was taught the bible was the absolute literal word of god), and then this little fairy tale as to how a religious education made Stalin susceptible to be overly devoted to any particular creed...except religion

Stalin was taught in seminary that the Bible was the absolute literal word of God. That's what the Russian Orthodox Church's theological stance was at the time, and this is what was taught in its seminaries.

As I've said, I won't explain the process again, but if you suddenly have a change of heart, feel free to look at just about any of my replies to this thread.

I mean, you don't even accept the possibility that Stalin learned fanatic devotion from any other source. Don't you think that indoctrination into a marxist group is it's own source of devotion? No, of course not. That possibility could never occur. It could never simply be, Stalin really, really like Marxism and that marxism had it's own problems.

You don't even accept the possibility that Stalin learned fanatical devotion from religion.

I think Stalin learned fanatical devotion that was later rechanneled into communism from religion because it makes historical sense. At various times, I have thought otherwise.

All someone has to do is not start from the premise that religion and only religion causes fanatic devotion, and your entire story looks like an argument pulling itself up by it's own bootstraps, presuming religion is everyone's original sin, equating bad with religion, and implicitly making communism okay excetp to the extent that some religious minded people like Stalin and Lenin and Pol Pot, who were atheists but religiously minded anyway, got all fanatical and bloody about it. It's an explanation based on premises that are the same as the explanation.

I've never said that only religion causes fanatical devotion, but it sure is up there. My position is that in the cases of Stalin and Pol Pot, it WAS religion that inspired the fanatical devotion. And who said anything about Lenin?

And I don't "presume religion is everyone's original sin", or "equate bad with religion." I'm not even an atheist, but I suppose you'll challenge that, too.

And please stop putting words in my mouth. This is about the third time, just as an example, you've implied that I'm a communist or communist sympathizer.

[okasha]

154. There is, of course, a third possibility,

namely that Stalin had some deep emotional need to be devoted to some system of belief before he ever got into the seminary. The seminary's teachings filled that need for him until it came into conflict with his ambition--whereupon he found another dogma, a secular and atheist one, that equally filled that need.

An then, there's the fourth--Stalin was from the first a sociopath with a deep-seated drive to power, and he used ("became devoted to") whatever set of dogmata furthered his ambition. My personal money's on this one.

[Inland]

158. None of those theories require the

somewhat bizarre concept that a religious seminary instilled in Stalin the qualities of fanaticism and devotion, which then disappeared long enough to reappear as slavish devotion to an ideology that was contrary to religion and atheist.

Making religion responsible for Stalin is like astronomers plotting retrograde motion of planets. If you don't assume the earth is at the center of the universe, you don't have to engage in the exercise. If you don't assume that religion is the cause of fanaticism, you don't have to explain the disappearence and reappearance of Stalin's trait.

Or it's like the marxist ideological theorists themselves, building more and more elaborate theories to explain why the facts don't bear out the earlier theory, instead of just throwing out the entire construct.

[The Magistrate]

159. And We Have A Winner, Ma'am! Congratulations!

By a knockout, in the closing moments of the fifteenth round of this otherwise dreary slug-fest!

You have nailed it to the floor, Ma'am. No one else has come close.

[kwassa]

155. The problem is that your position is complete supposition

catbert:
"I think Stalin learned fanatical devotion that was later rechanneled into communism from religion because it makes historical sense. At various times, I have thought otherwise."

for which you have no proof, but speculation.

" My position is that in the cases of Stalin and Pol Pot, it WAS religion that inspired the fanatical devotion."

for which you have no proof, but speculation.

When you have some proof, let us know.

Dogmatism does not equal fanatacism. There are many dogmatic believers of many different things that don't qualify as fanatics. No cause and effect here.

[Inland]

157. You promised.

Just reread everything I wrote. I keep restating the same obvious arguments, only to find that your flights of fancy are getting wilder and wilder, now bolstered with the "argument" that it makes "historical sense", which can only mean that your arguments conform to your own prejudices. You call it "historical sense", I call it equating bad with religion because that's your sense of history.

[catbert836]

167. That's funny.

Everything you just posted could be said about you. I've had one consistent position throughout this entire sham, and you've just responded with accusations that I'm a communist and sheer ignorance of history, as well as a tacit refusal to have an intelligent debate. I've been very patient with you throughout, but it's time for this to be over. My patience extends no further, plus, I'm now being dogpiled, and it's been difficult enough trying to reason with just one of you. So I guess it's over, Inland. And no, that doesn't mean that you won, although you'll probably think it does. Don't even try to bait me with a rejoiner. I'm fucking done.

[Silent3]

161. "Scientifically based anti religion ideology"?

Communism is about as scientific as "Christian Science" and Scientology are scientific.

[trotsky]

39. Ah, nice shift.

Because communism itself can be religious, as evidenced by the earliest Christian groups as described in the bible. Very clever, Inland, knowing you would get caught on that, so you shifted and are now criticizing Marxism instead.

You're a crafty one, aren't you! I love how hatred of atheism is such a driving force in your life.

[Inland]

41. You don't know communism is.

Between ignorance of religion and ignorance of communism, there doesn't seem to be an ideology that you know. Anyone who describes a pre-industrial society as "communist" should break out a primer on Marx and then, after a rudimentary education, gracefully exit the conversation out of embarrassment.

[trotsky]

46. So only post-industrial people

can share resources and live under "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Gosh, I had no idea. The Rules of Inland. I better write these down.

[Inland]

70. Well, you really are ignorant of Marxism

if you think that's the sine qua non of it. Pretty funny, you think that it's just "be nice and share", and that you show so little knowledge of an ideology that has atheism as its central tenet.

[catbert836]

77. Oh, really?

You seem to be the one who has no idea what communism or Marxism is.

you show so little knowledge of an ideology that has atheism as its central tenet

Anyone who knew fact one about Marxism knows that the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the of a classless society are its central tenets, with atheism probably not even making the top 10.

[Inland]

78. Who got into the communist party in the USSR, China, Albania?

Apparently whatever YOU think about the relationship of communism to religion, the communist parties in the communist countries were without religious people, or with only secretly religious people, I guess.

Maybe they read this part of the Manifesto which, after all, was the shortest possible course in what communism is:
"But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

It's always a thrill to see communism defended as more open and wonderful than we all thought.

[catbert836]

80. Inland, read my previous comment.

You said that trotsky was ignorant of communism, an ideology with "atheism as its central tenet". I challenged that statement, as the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a classless society are clearly much for central to Marxism than atheism is.

Maybe they read this part of the Manifesto which, after all, was the shortest possible course in what communism is:
"But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

The Manifesto is of course the shortest course on communism there is. However, the part you quoted is not nearly as important to Marxism or Marxists as the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a classless society are.

It's always a thrill to see communism defended as more open and wonderful than we all thought.

You're putting words in my mouth, yet again.

[Inland]

82. I guess you quibble with "central".

Atheism was central enough to communism that anyone who wasn't could not be a party member.

If you think that communists were tolerant of religion, then I guess all those communists got it wrong and you got it right. I guess they weren't true communists.

[catbert836]

84. Here's exactly what you said:

you show so little knowledge of an ideology that has atheism as its central tenet. (emphasis mine)

Saying this implies that atheism is THE, as in singular, central tenet of Marxism. I've said all along that the central tenets of Marxism were the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a class-free society. Atheism could be described as a tenet of Marxism, however calling it central is a gross misrepresentation.

If you think that communists were tolerant of religion, then I guess all those communists got it wrong and you got it right. I guess they weren't true communists.

This is the third or fourth time you've tried to put words in my mouth. Please stop.

[Inland]

89. Yeah, I shouldn't have said "the", when it's only "a".

Gonna fire my proofreader.

Yet, nothing excuses the following:

"Atheism could be described as a tenet of Marxism, however calling it central is a gross misrepresentation."

If you can't be a party member and have a religious belief, it's central. I'm not sure what could be more central than a disqualification for party membership.

Would you be happier with a different word? You can call it a banana for all I care, as long as everyone is clear that atheism isn't just some sort of afterthought, like wearing red ribbons or singing the Internationale. Prerequisite? Requirement? Gold Standard? Mimimum?

[okasha]

87. I guess they weren't true communists.

Beat me to it.

[Inland]

90. Or not true atheists.

The express argument is that Stalin was infected by the fanaticism inherent in russian orthodoxy, and therefore wasn't a good, nonfanatic communist. I think the implied additional argument is that because the communists weren't all so antireligious, they weren't truly atheist enough.

[Quantess]

100. antireligious is not the same as atheist.

How many self-proclaimed atheists are anti-religious? A few, maybe. The "antireligious" atheists are the ones with a serious opposition to religion, who probably have inner mental battles with the religion infused to them as a child. I don't know, maybe Stalin was rebelling against his Christian upbringing, and that's what fueled his antireligion.

Some people just aren't religious. They are atheists, too. Being an atheist does not require being antireligious.

[beam me up scottie]

102. "Some people just aren't religious. They are atheists, too."

Being an atheist does not require being antireligious."

Well said.

Some of us have NEVER been believers.

And a great many of us despise all that has been and still IS being done in the name of organized religion, not the religious themselves.

[Inland]

114. Of course not.

It's not my argument, but an implicit premise that somebody else is circling around. As it turns out the communist world was both atheist and antireligious. There's nothing about atheism that brings marxism, but there's something about communist party membership in the second world that required atheism. Just saying.

[Quantess]

143. And that "something....

about the communist party membership...that required atheism" is about controlling people, in my opinion. The idea of stripping away individuality. Religions might distract people away from the dogma force fed to them by the government.

I suppose a government could also control its people by enforcing religion, as well.

[Inland]

145. That's a good point.

Marx, for example, had no problem with control, at least as put into practice by Lenin and Mao. Indeed, I think they all saw force and propaganda as forseeable necessities to make it all work. But he saw religion as competing. He saw the choice as either enforceing his marxist ideology or religion. Dialectic and all.

[Brentos]

60. The earliest Christians

The earliest Christians in the Bible weren't communists, nor did they live in communes. The earliest Christians would use the gifts God gave them (time/talent/treasure) and assist any others who needed them. They didn't pool there resources, they shared and helped out. Christianity does assume that people are blessed with differing and differing amounts of time/talent/treasure, the true goal is to help others less fortunate. When you arrive in Heaven, what does the Bible tell us you are asked? (see below). If only Christians would focus on the main point that our Rabbi was telling us, we would not only help the world, but we wouldn't keep creating a bad name for ourselves.

Think about this...for every $1,000,000 Christians in churches spend on building projects, they spend $1.00 on outreach programs to help those less fortunate.


matthew 25:31-46
The Judgment of the Nations

‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

[trotsky]

63. I know it's a delicate point.

Especially for Christian capitalists. But reading the passages in Acts, it is clear that even though the earliest communities could not be called "communist" for the simple reason the term and concept didn't exist yet, they were as communist as could be at that point in time.

[Brentos]

65. Sure....

if by Communist you mean people of God, sharing God's wealth with those who need it, then they do match that. But it is quite the opposite of Communism which outlaws religion and gives the wealth to the state, who decides what to do with it. The Christian belief is/(sadly, 'was' and no longer 'is' for many) that all wealth is God's and that we are stewards over God's wealth and should use it for helping God's people (all humanity) in order to bring them to God. Jesus' parable of the talents (money) shows us this (see below). The parable shows that God entrusts us all with talents (time/talent/money) and that we are expected, as Christians, to use it for his good purpose, not hide it and never use it.

Matthew 25:14 For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. 16 Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. 17 In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. 18 But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, "Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.' 21 His master said to him, "Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' 22 Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, "Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.' 23 His master said to him, "Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' 24 And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. 25 "And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.' 26 But his master answered and said to him, "You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. 27 "Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. 28 "Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.' 29 For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. 30 Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NASB)

[trotsky]

68. The opposite of communism? I dunno about that.

One key characteristic the early communities had in common with USSR-style communism is enforced obedience, and punishment for those who withheld from the group. (Acts 5:1-11 shows the death penalty was the punishment!)

[okasha]

156. You're misrepresenting the passage and cherry-picking again.

The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not witholding from the group but lying: they claimed to be giving the entire proceeds of the sale of land to the church group, but were held back part of the money. Peter makes clear that they were free to keep all of the money for themselves:

"While you still owned the land, wasn't it yours to keep, and after you had sold it wasn't the money yours to do with as you liked? What put this scheme into your mind? It is not to men that you have lied, but to God." When he heard this, Ananias fell down dead. Acts 5:4-5

No indication of how he died, by the way, but he certainly is not represented as the victim of an execution enforced by humans. Now, if you want to argue that the text implies that God struck the guy dead, you'd be on safer ground. It's a trope the author of Acts seems rather fond of; see Acts 12: 20 ff.

[trotsky]

162. Ah, okasha comes running to the rescue of the literalist again.

What would they do without you as such a staunch defender?

Curious - what version of the bible are you using? None of the versions I've looked up have used the specific phrase "wasn't the money yours to do with as you liked".

Bottom line is, he (and his wife) were punished for withholding from the group. The money wasn't really his to do with as he liked then, was it?

[okasha]

170. Now that's strange.

I don't see any "literalist" here who needs defending. And I have a distinct recollection of not defending literalists in the past. The only person who's brought up the story of Ananias and Sapphira is--uhm, you. Perhaps the literalist you're referring to is your evil twin, Skippy? Your evil, invisible twin, perhaps?

When the strict meaning of the text is important, the translation I use is the Jerusalem Bible. It's mostly inelegant, and it chews up the poetry terribly, but except in a few places it's your best bet in English for a straightforward rendition of the original.

"Bottom line is, he (and his wife) were punished for withholding from the group. The money wasn't really his to do with as he liked then, was it?"

Bottom line is, Ananias and Sapphira were punished not for withholding part of their property but for lying, and for and hypocritically making themselves appear to be more generous donors than they actually were. Peter's part of the dialogue makes clear that they were free to give any amount or none, as they chose. Their sin is that "It is not to men that you have lied, but to God." No mention of not forking over the money.

[trotsky]

171. No, of course you don't.

You only see the atheist who was having a discussion with him.

Anyway, what was that about context? If Ananias & his wife were merely punished for lying, then how does that tie into other parts of Acts, namely 2:44-45 and 4:34-37?

As Austin Cline of atheism.about.com notes, Killing bourgeoisie land owners who fail to give all of their money to the community? That’s not merely communism, that’s Stalinism.

[okasha]

174. Truth or dare, trotsky. Point out the "literalist" I was defending,

please.

Anyway, what was that about context? If Ananias & his wife were merely punished for lying, then how does that tie into other parts of Acts, namely 2:44-45 and 4:34-37?

You tell me. Do you see anything in those passages, which describe how the Christians at Antioch were selling their property and giving the proceeds to the church, that says that the church members were required to do so? If anything, the text makes it explicitly clear that they were not required to do so. Ananias' and Sapphira's sin, again, is lying about the amount they contributed, thereby making themselves appear more generous and devout than they actually were. (This is otherwise known as hypocrisy.) A case can also be made that they were defrauding the other members, who had given the full value of their property, taking in greater proportion than they were giving. (This is otherwise known as stealing.)

Now, I don't think frauds and liars should be struck dead on the spot, but . . .. Oh, wait a minute. I could be persuaded to make a few exceptions, but I'll settle for watching the bastards frog-marched out of the White House.

[trotsky]

175. It's not hard.

You can figure it out if you try really hard, I bet.

Regarding the other verses,

All the believers were together and had everything in common. (Acts 2:44)

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. (Acts 4:32)

There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)

You have a much bigger challenge trying to spin that away as meaning people were free to keep what they wanted for themselves.

[okasha]

177. Tch. Trotsky, trotsky, trotsky.

If you want to debate, debate. But you need facts; you don't get to just make shit up. (On the other hand, if you have an imaginary literalist to keep you company, who am I to say you can't? :shrug: )

Again, no requirement mentioned. Again, Peter's words make it clear that the sharing of goods is voluntary. Again, you're reading something that just isn't there. See above about not making shit up.

[trotsky]

178. Interesting standard.

Quoting bible verses is now "making shit up." What part of "all" or "everything" is so hard for you to grasp? It doesn't say they shared everything except that which they didn't want to share, does it? Or maybe the standard use of the word "everything" is supposed to mean "everything except for some things as declared by okasha"? Did you write your own concordance now?

I guess this is your way of backing down. :shrug:

[okasha]

180. Nope, But I think I should probably apologize for equating your

apparently fictional "literalist" with "shit." Even a literalist deals with the text on the page, not some idiosyncratic version made up "out'n his own headbone," to quote Pogo.

What part of "voluntary" is so hard for you to understand? The people who shared "everything" appear to have shared it voluntarily; there is no evidence in the text of force or requirement. Peter says, "While you still owned the land, wasn't it yours to keep, and after you had sold it wasn't the money yours to do with as you liked?" You seem to read that as "Fork over the dough or sleep with the fishes." How you get from one to the other escapes me. But then, your exegesis generally seems a bit, uhm--idiosyncratic, shall we say.

[trotsky]

181. Well, I can see I've touched quite the nerve.

Apparently in the world of okasha, encompassing words like "all" and "everything" don't mean the same thing. No, you are free to reinterpret and bash opposing viewpoints as "shit."

What was voluntary was joining the group. Once in the group, ALL shared EVERYTHING, as is made perfectly clear in multiple passages. Withholding from the group was not an option. I'm terribly sorry, but there is nothing in the text that supports your personal interpretation. You are making it up as you go along. But please note, no matter how mistaken I think you are, I will not call your personal interpretation "shit." I won't stoop that low.

[okasha]

182. Just keep sidestepping there, m'man.

Apparently in the world of trotsky, "yours to do with it as you liked" means "forced to hand it over." But of course, I'm trying to have a rational discourse with someone who can't tell the difference between "Not all atheists are whackjobs" and "All atheists are whackjobs." It's probably futile.

But I didn't call your personal interpretation "shit." I called the material you simply made up and added to the text in order to justify your interpretation "shit." There's a difference.

[trotsky]

183. Now you're completely misstating I said.

I guess we must be reaching the final stages of our discussion. Distorting, misstating, using scatological references to insult, and a complete lack of any remaining defense of your position. My those are some impressive debating skills you have. Let me know when you decide that "all" and "everything" can mean what the rest of the world thinks they mean. Until then, I agree with you - it's probably futile. :hi:

[Brentos]

185. Literalist?

Am I the literalist we are speaking of?

As to the meaning of the way they lived, go study how the earliest Christians lived. They were not communists and were allowed to own, but they would help each other with their gifts. Many sold everything and passed it out by need, but there was no requirement. The reason you see word such as "all" that confuse your interpretation, is that we don't own anything. It is God's treasure that we have been entrusted with and need to wisely use, so we don't own anything, it is owned by everyone. But, as a bank manager manages other people's money, we, as Christians, are entrusted with the treasures God has provided us to manage in His name. So, "everything" and "all" are given to "everyone" but some still have more than others. Not every bank has the same amount of wealth, but each bank manager has been entrusted to invest/guard the money per the wishes of their clients.

[trotsky]

186. They were allowed to own?

No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own - Acts 4:32

Interesting interpretation you have.

Sorry I got tripped up by that tricky word "all." I guess depending on how a Christian wants to interpret the bible, it can mean all, most, some, or none, eh?

[Brentos]

187. Yes

No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own - Acts 4:32

True. If the goods/treasures in your care are God's, and you are merely the caretaker, can you consider those goods/treasures your own? It doesn't mean you don't have stuff, it's just not yours.

Read again the example of the bank manager, he has tons of money entrusted to him in his bank, yet he owns none of it.

The 1st Century Christians didn't claim any possessions as there own, yet they had possessions. They were God's, and if a fellow needed something, they would help them out as needed. If it is not your to begin with, you don't have the anxiety of giving it away. Think of how much better our world would be if the Christian faith had continued to follow this way of living (ignoring whether or not you believe in Christ/God as deity).

[trotsky]

188. You're just playing a game of semantics.

You're saying they don't "own" things, but only in the mystical sense, that nothing can be "owned." I'm not arguing that. For one, I think it's pointless. It's a debate that can only happen within some given spiritual/mystical context.

In the context of other verses in Acts, it becomes clear that the early Christians did not think they "owned" their possessions from a materialistic standpoint either. (I.e., "claimed" them as their own.) And the lone example we have of someone who sold what they had, and held some back as their own, it's not a good thing.

[Brentos]

190. Yes, it is semantical

That is the point.

You cannot own what is not yours, but you can be a caretaker of that. If you think you own something, you will use it how you want to. If you believe God owns it, you should use it as He would want you to use it. If the Christian Church still followed this basic tenet, think of how wonderful the world could be! Sadly, Christians tend to be the most hypocritical, as they have the Word, don't study the Word, don't learn the meaning of the Word, yet try to cram it down everyone else's throat. The Word is meant for Christians, not for non-believers. If Christians truly followed the Word, more people would be drawn to them, and then they could teach them the Word. Forcing Christian thoughts/ideals/etc. down non-Christian throats is a horrible, horrible thing to do, and actually anit-Christian if you study the Word.

Study how the earliest Christians actually lived, it matches this way of living. Not until the period of churches and centralizing the religion did we really get into the current-style messes with our religion.

Thanks,
-Brent

[trotsky]

191. So do you think Christian communities should go back to having

communal property? Everyone out earning, but coming back to the group and giving it all to be shared, whether it's forced or not?

Are you currently in such a community? Or are you part of the "current-style" mess?

[Brentos]

192. No, I think you misunderstand...

Communal living was not a necessary part of Christianity. Sharing doesn't mean equal sharing, but sharing to help others in their need. God helps those who help themselves, so you also wouldn't give to those who are just lazy and refuse to work because they want a handout. I do help out those in need with money, time, and talent. I reach out to help my Christian and non-Christian friends when needed, I work with refugees through Exodus International, I support a child in Africa, I give to my church and donate other time/talent/money.

I don't live in a commune, nor plan to, although it is okay to, but not a requirement. The earliest Christians understood what was meant and lived like that. Remember, it is not a pool of money/goods in a pot that everyone shares equally. I am, however, somewhat greedy and horde more than I probably should, which is why I would never condemn others for what they do/or don't do, I just try to lead the best possible example I can as a Christian and hope others recognize that. If they are interested, I will explain my beliefs and ask about theirs.

[trotsky]

193. Oh, OK.

Just wanted to get the official explanation why you aren't subject to the same rules.

[Brentos]

194. Thanks

It's been a good discussion.

[Brentos]

184. Jerusalem Bible

Quick aside: I love the Jerusalem Bible! It is hard to find, yet my favorite to teach from. I can't stand the New Jerusalem Bible, though.

-Brent

[unschooler]

14. I agree it's not a "religion," but it's an ideology that demands

acceptance on faith, with no dissent allowed.

For me, it's not about whether one's irrational beliefs do or do not include a belief in a deity (not saying that someone might not have perfectly ratoinal reasons for believing in a deity).

The argument is that when one person says to another, "here's the book with all of the answers, so obey it (or my interpretation of it) or I'll punish you (because my book says I should)" that's dangerous. It doesn't matter whether the book is about God or about politics. When we don't question authority, be it in the form of a book or the form of a leader, we invite trouble.

[bloom]

116. Sam Harris is an idiot.

It's interesting to see how often he comes up when people are bashing religion.

And it's not enough to bash religion - he is against tolerance of religion.

Like his -> "that progressive tolerance of faith-based unreason is as great a menace as religion itself."


I don't think he or his ideas are helpful for any reasonable discussion about religion. To quote him (as if he has some truth) is like quoting Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter IMO. Polemics.

[kwassa]

5. "Unjustified belief" according to whom?

Seems like a point of view thing to me. I think that Communists thought their beliefs fully justified, based on their analysis of society.

and there is that "R" word again: rational.

Humans are both rational and irrational, all of them. We are not all rational all the time. And, reasonable rational people can differ. Many religious people are highly rational. Some atheists are quite irrational.
We all have our moments.

I do find it humorous that some atheists claim rationality and free-thinking for themselves. Many theists see themselves the same way.

[Silent3]

7. Do they?

I do find it humorous that some atheists claim rationality and free-thinking for themselves. Many theists see themselves the same way.

I can't say this is absolutely universally true, but nearly all theists I've encountered who spend much time thinking about their beliefs soon realize that neither empirical data nor "reason alone" will get them where they're they're trying to go, hence they end up having to say that "faith" is required. I'd call these leaps of faith unjustified -- while of course theists try to dress up the making of such leaps as a kind of special virtue.

While many theists may indeed consider themselves rational beings, by their own admission they deliberately abandon rationality at a certain point.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. I tend to agree with you

I have never spent much time looking for or demanding empirical data because I don't believe our five senses provide us all the data we need. My faith is not reliant on my senses. Much of it is intuitive, just a sense of knowing. I don't have to stretch or leap to do it. It just came with the body. I don't know why.

I consider myself rational in many ways, but I am not limited by rationality. What I have noticed about atheists (I know, I'm defining) is that they appear to have a much higher regard for rational data than I do.

[Silent3]

11. Not limited?

I have never spent much time looking for or demanding empirical data because I don't believe our five senses provide us all the data we need.

What "needs" are these? Who says that for every need there must be a source of satisfaction out there somewhere? Who says satisfying needs and finding truths are the same thing?

My faith is not reliant on my senses. Much of it is intuitive, just a sense of knowing.

When you look at all of the different and often mutually contradictory things so many people claim to "just know", "just knowing" doesn't demonstrate a very great track record. More to the point of the thread, people who combine "just knowing" with an aggressive desire to impose what they "just know" on everyone else, have caused some, if not most, of the bloodiest episodes in history.

Of course, the "let's all sing Kumbaya" take on this is to count only the friendly, well-mannered believers and give them credit for finding "different paths to the same truth", or some such wishywashiness. But why should the supposed Power of Faith get graded on such a generous curve as that?

I consider myself rational in many ways, but I am not limited by rationality.

Not limited by rationality? If the question is "What's 2 plus 2 equal?", is one being "limited" by answering 4, but showing what a free, unconstrained human spirit they are by answering 17 or -3.33 or "troubled mangrove aphrodisiac"?

(There's a whole tangent on irrational vs. "non-rational" I could go off on here, logic, axioms, empiricism, basic assumptions, internal consistency, etc., but I'll gloss over that so long as what we're taking the umbrella term "rationality" to cover doesn't seem under serious dispute.)

At any rate, I think rationality can be very freeing rather than limiting. I see many "believers" as all to willing to quickly close in on notions which satisfy their human psychological needs rather than leave open broader possibilities and accept that the best answer is often "I don't know".

Whenever I hear someone start off an argument for belief in God or an afterlife or whatever with a phrase like, "I just can't believe that we're not here to fulfill a purpose, that all of this isn't here for a reason" -- that sounds like a statement of a personal limitation to me.

[varkam]

15. I wish...

I could nominate individual posts for the greatest page. Excellent points.

[greyl]

28. Yep, she/he needs to create a du journal. ;) nt

[catbert836]

23. Try to understand.

Believers' beliefs are often based on intuition. The fact that intuition is not enough for you doesn't matter to believers, including me, although I don't subscribe to any organized religion. Intuition is enough for us to validate our beliefs, but if it isn't for you, I don't care anyway, because I'm not out there to convert you.

But if you do try to convert others, then it's certainly right for them to ask for proof.

[varkam]

32. But I think the big problem is that..

intuition (religious intuition included) has been responsible for some of the more horrendous atrocities of human history. The intuition that people had regarding the inferiority of blacks was upheld even in the face of no sound science or evidence (some "evidence" did come about, e.g. The Bell Curve, but it was chock full of methodological errors and were great examples of scientists accepting a hypothesis before they had good reason to do so). Hitler had the intuition that Jews were evil and needed to be exterminated. Osama bin Laden (and others) have the intuition that if they die in battle with the enemy, they will go straight to paradise with Allah and the gaggle of virgins. The common denominator? No evidence.

I'm not saying we could or even should live our lives without any intuition or live our lives with only reason and rationality - as certain things simply cannot be explained yet. What I am saying is we need to be more aware of the shortcomings of this cognitive state we call "intuition".

[catbert836]

85. It certainly has.

And I'm certainly aware of the shortcomings of intuition. Should I not base my beliefs on it, then? Maybe. I still have to work that out on my own.

[Silent3]

33. Why do so many talk about intuition as though it were a form of magic?

Intuition isn't magic. Intuition isn't infallible either. Intuition can be quite well understood as nothing more than thought processes which occur beneath the conscious level. The brain has a lot of work to do, and there's nothing surprising about the idea that there are mental processes which work more efficiently when free from the overhead of noting and recording all decision-making steps -- an efficiency which results in the formation of ideas which attain conscious realization while lacking any recorded pedigrees by which you can understand how you came upon these ideas.

I use intuition all of the time. Even in technical work like software engineering, I'd say a good portion of the solutions I come up with are intuitive, simply occurring to me suddenly in whole or nearly whole form. I then have to put those intuitions to the test, however. Validation isn't conveniently postponed until after my death.

Believers' beliefs are often based on intuition.

Sandwiches are often based on bread... so? :)

The fact that intuition is not enough for you doesn't matter to believers, including me, although I don't subscribe to any organized religion.

The big question is why is intuition enough for you? I'm sure you've seen intuition fail -- at least someone else's intuition if you aren't prepared to fault your own. Of course, there's always the perfect intuition which arises from conveniently revisionist history: Whatever we decide to believe or do which doesn't turn out right... well, then that wasn't really intuition we were using. If we get something wrong, we must have been ignoring our intuition, and (horrors!) we were probably overthinking the issue.

Intuition is enough for us to validate our beliefs, but if it isn't for you, I don't care anyway, because I'm not out there to convert you.

What does the word "validate" mean? If a quiet inside feeling that an idea is true, especially an idea which is safely removed from being put to the test while you're alive, is what you'd like to call "validation" -- fine, but it's a weak use of the word.

"Validation" in a strong sense is a public process. A public process helps us escape our own limitations and failings, it helps us pit our beliefs against those of others, it helps us test for consistency within our ideas.

In this stronger sense of the word, your intuition alone can't help you in validating anything.

But if you do try to convert others, then it's certainly right for them to ask for proof.

Unless you consider mere statement of contrary opinion an act of attempted conversion, I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything. As for burden of proof... I'd say that burden rests on the shoulders of anyone whose position is not a "null hypothesis", and on anyone citing something with as spotty a record as "intuition" as their own form of proof.

[catbert836]

86. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of intuition.

And maybe my beliefs shouldn't rely on it. I still have to work that out on my own.

What I'm trying to say here is an explanation of why believers believe, although I'm certainly not doing it justice. Intuition is most often enough for believers to validate their beliefs TO THEMSELVES. You're an atheist. That's fine. I'm not. And I'm not asking you to take up my beliefs on the basis of my, or anyone else's intuition, because you see things differently than I do, and maybe we'll never see eye to eye on this.

My "converting" statement was intended to state something like this: If an evangelical Christian tries to convert you, then it is absolutely right for you to ask for proof of their beliefs. If they respond with intuition, well, then you won't be converted.

I hope that made some sense.

[manic expression]

88. If you don't mind,

I'd like to add a few things.

"Who says that for every need there must be a source of satisfaction out there somewhere? Who says satisfying needs and finding truths are the same thing?"

Well, satisfying a need is certainly a source of satisfaction.

On rationality and intuition, see my 2nd to last paragraph.

I wonder why you deem tolerance "wishywashedness". Why do you see mutual respect as something to insult and deride? Is it because you find it contradictory to some idea/belief that religion is detrimental? Furthermore, are you also saying that this is a relatively current trend? If you are, I would have you know that the religions which preceded the monotheistic, Judeo-Christian faiths have had that outlook (the "kumbaya" one) since before Stonehenge.

I cannot speak for the person you are responding to. However, to address your comments, I think there is something very important to the 2+2=4 equation. First, what can this tell us about the universe? First, that two and two make four. There is much more to this, however. To begin, this equation tells us that four can be expressed in many different ways, as 2+2 is, in effect, 4 itself. Secondly, I find the fact that all of these numbers have a commonality to them interesting. This commonality is not expressed in the equation, but it is still there, as 2=2/1 and 4=4/1. Both of these numbers, although different, are ultimately of the same.

Just a few thoughts. Oh, and can you give me physical, empirical evidence of a negative amount? I'm just wondering.

Rationality is a path to truth, yes. However, I do think that there are many ways you can think about something. Try to bear with me:

... http://amisderouen.jubiiblog.fr/upload/293%20-%20Cathedral%20-%20Rouen,%20France.JPG

Both are expressions of the actual Cathedral itself. One is a picture, perhaps the most accurate (rational, if you will) production in a secondary medium. Another is a painting, which may not be entirely accurate, but shows it nonetheless. I hope you get my meaning.

While I recognize that intuition can be accurate (teachers always tell their students to trust their first reactions on tests), intuition gives different impressions to different people. Therefore, rational discussion through observations and inferences are important to construct and support a conclusion on any subject.

(Also, I would contend that formal "logic" learned in a college classroom isn't the only way to be "logical" about something. Trying to figure out the world through observation is natural, and I think many people extend this, in a reasonable way, to the concept of divinity...just another thought)

By the way, I have no problem with the highest degree of disagreement, but I would ask you to please restrain from deriding my words. I'm tired tonight, and really, I'm just tired of it.

[Silent3]

95. I... can't... get... nuh-oh... sat... iss... fac... shuh-un

"Who says that for every need there must be a source of satisfaction out there somewhere? Who says satisfying needs and finding truths are the same thing?"

Well, satisfying a need is certainly a source of satisfaction.

And tautologies are certainly very... er... tautological! :)

What exactly, if anything, are you attempting to refute here?

If I'm gravely ill and have a need for a new heart, but there isn't a matching organ available to suit my need, I will die. It's not only that we can't always attain what we need, but what we need simply may not exist at all. The universe is in no way obligated to satisfy my needs, even my most pressing needs. I don't see how this unfortunate fact can be denied (although I can imagine some of the amusing attempts to redefine "need" which might be proffered in order to try).

I can also "need" a cigarette, and get one, but fulfilling this particular "need" isn't necessarily good for me.

My point? A person's "need" for something "spiritual" does not in any way imply that a spiritual world to satisfy that need actually exists. (To use some popular fundy-speak, a "God shaped hole" doesn't imply or prove the existence of a God which will be able to fill that hole.) Further, the things that people do find which seem to satisfy their needs aren't necessarily "good" or "true" simply because they produce satisfaction (unless you limit your pursuit of truth to finding whatever "truly" makes you feel satisfied without looking at any broader picture.)

I wonder why you deem tolerance "wishywashedness".

No need to wonder such a thing, since I don't deem any such thing. To me the important meaning of tolerance is that we don't kill people simply because we disagree on religious matters, that we don't refuse to hire them, and that we don't fill their parked cars with stinky cheese on hot summer days in response to our theological disputes. I don't, however, confuse "tolerance" with a bankrupt lack of intellectual rigor (use of pablum like "different paths to the same truth" can be a shining example) which is often employed to make tolerance easier to come by.

Oh, and can you give me physical, empirical evidence of a negative amount? I'm just wondering.

If you think a rational/empirical approach means that every useful concept has to be as physically solid as a brick I can put in your hand, you're arguing against your own straw man. I'd have to type pages and pages of text to begin to address that misapprehension, however, so for now I'll just suggest you look into the matter more yourself.

One is a picture... I hope you get my meaning.

And I hope you can understand that a person can be rational and empirical while still being able to explore and appreciate that which is non-rational and irrational and vague and symbolic and poetic and poorly defined and laden with emotion. The trick is to be able to find God in a song or a sunset, and not confuse that God with a God who has a strange fixation over what you do with your genitalia, or with some God who's actually listening when you pray for finding your lost car keys.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Nice.

And I hope you can understand that a person can be rational and empirical while still being able to explore and appreciate that which is non-rational and irrational and vague and symbolic and poetic and poorly defined and laden with emotion. The trick is to be able to find God in a song or a sunset, and not confuse that God with a God who has a strange fixation over what you do with your genitalia, or with some God who's actually listening when you pray for finding your lost car keys.

Very nice.:)

[bluesbassman]

103. Thick as a brick.

My apologies to Ian Anderson.

Please expand on this statement,

I don't, however, confuse "tolerance" with a bankrupt lack of intellectual rigor (use of pablum like "different paths to the same truth" can be a shining example) which is often employed to make tolerance easier to come by.

as I fail to understand your correlation. Your obvious disdain for the maxim "different paths to the same truth" intrigues me. As you have indicated that you are involved in software, surely you have experienced simultaneous results obtained by different methodology. So why would you equate that maxim to a "bankrupt lack of intellectual rigor" when it comes to the philosophical approach to tolerance. And if you would be so kind as to cite verifiable references of people's cars being stuffed with smelly cheese on hot days, it would be appreciated.

Also, could you explain how the following statement validates your position?

If you think a rational/empirical approach means that every useful concept has to be as physically solid as a brick I can put in your hand, you're arguing against your own straw man. I'd have to type pages and pages of text to begin to address that misapprehension, however, so for now I'll just suggest you look into the matter more yourself.

It occurs to me that you have just used the same type of non sequitur that you routinely rip apart. Now you are suggesting that a "useful concept" does not have to be physically solid? Isn't that exactly what you require of theists when they attempt to convey the rational for their beliefs- rock solid evidence? Please elaborate.

And I would really be interested to hear your expanded thoughts on this response;

And I hope you can understand that a person can be rational and empirical while still being able to explore and appreciate that which is non-rational and irrational and vague and symbolic and poetic and poorly defined and laden with emotion. The trick is to be able to find God in a song or a sunset, and not confuse that God with a God who has a strange fixation over what you do with your genitalia, or with some God who's actually listening when you pray for finding your lost car keys.

When exactly have you attempted to "explore and appreciate that which is non-rational and irrational and vague and symbolic and poetic and poorly defined and laden with emotion" in this forum with any sort of "appreciation" for the non-rational and irrational and vague and symbolic positions that many people try to convey? Really, there is a "trick" to finding God? Please do tell us what that "trick" is, as I'm sure that it would cure a lot of the worlds problems if we all could have that skill. And God lives in a sunset? Wouldn't that make God your "invisible sky friend"? Sorry, just couldn't resist.
:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

104. I can't speak for K4K, but

I took that last part as a reference to the myth that atheists are cold, dispassionate materialists with no appreciation for beauty.

Not that you inferred that, of course, but the poster he was responding to has a history of stereotyping atheists.

[bluesbassman]

105. You're right bmus..

I don't feel any of those things about atheists in general. Not to sound cliche, but I know many atheists who are warm, caring, giving and creative people, and I value my relationships with them all. I'm sure there are some that fit the myth you describe, just as I know so-called "religious" folk who are all that and more. I just found K4K's reference a bit odd considering other arguments K4K has posted. Definitely not a slam on atheists, just a little sparring with K4K. My sincere apologies if I offended you in any way.

[beam me up scottie]

106. You've never offended me.

I admire and respect you, T.Grannie, Hunter and the other christians and believers who post in this forum in the spirit of communication and understanding.

Atheists are few and far between in the real world (sometimes I think I'm the only one in my state-but varkam just informed me there's at least two of us) and atheist myths aren't exposed and challenged often enough.

That's why I thought I'd explain why I appreciated that part of his post.

[Goblinmonger]

118. Here's my response to theism = creativity

T.S. Eliot before conversion: Prufrock and Waste Land
T.S. Eliot after conversion: The children's book that led to the horrible musical Cats

Show me anyone who things the literature AFTER conversion is better.

[Silent3]

121. Different paths, etc.

Your obvious disdain for the maxim "different paths to the same truth" intrigues me. As you have indicated that you are involved in software, surely you have experienced simultaneous results obtained by different methodology. So why would you equate that maxim to a "bankrupt lack of intellectual rigor" when it comes to the philosophical approach to tolerance.

I'm not denying that there indeed can be multiple paths to the same truth, my disdain is for way the phrase "different paths to the same truth" is tossed around lightly, without any depth of consideration for all of mutually irreconcilable dreck that exists between and within various religious and spiritual philosophies and dogmas.

The "different paths" aphorism isn't the philosophical approach to tolerance, it is merely one possible approach, and not a very good one because it's not very intellectually honest.

It occurs to me that you have just used the same type of non sequitur that you routinely rip apart. Now you are suggesting that a "useful concept" does not have to be physically solid? Isn't that exactly what you require of theists when they attempt to convey the rational for their beliefs- rock solid evidence? Please elaborate.

You're asking me to fight against your own stereotype of what rationality is about, not against anything that comes directly out of the words I've used myself.

One poster asked me to show a "negative amount", as if this were some perilous challenge to rationality. Hell, I can't even show you a positive amount. I can show you five apples or five antique fountain pens, but I haven't shown you the number five. The number itself is an abstract concept. Show me where I've ever denied the utility of abstract concepts, and then you and the other poster might have a point to make.

If you now try to say something like "Well, God is just an abstract concept too" -- fine, that works up to a point. But one doesn't pray to abstract concepts, one doesn't treat an abstraction as a real intelligence out there listening to one's thoughts and prayers. I do not cringe in fear that some numerical entity is going to threaten my immortal soul if I make a mathematical error -- my relationship with numbers is one that respects the useful domains and applications of that abstraction.

When exactly have you attempted to "explore and appreciate that which is non-rational and irrational and vague and symbolic and poetic and poorly defined and laden with emotion" in this forum with any sort of "appreciation" for the non-rational and irrational and vague and symbolic positions that many people try to convey?

I do not live my life in these forums (I probably already live too much of it here, in fact!) so you can't expect to have seen every bit of exploration and appreciation I've ever done in my life on full display.

"Appreciation" is also a matter of context. I appreciate fiction like, oh, say, Lord of the Rings. There are truths about human nature to be found in such stories, and truths about what kinds of mythic symbolism people respond to. None of this means I have to grant the book status as historical truth -- I can see elements of truth while still being fully aware that the books in the trilogy are fiction. I also know that if I turn off willing suspension of disbelief that such stories are quite ridiculous, and if one isn't willing to work within the spirit of the story, one could very well be appalled by the very anti-democratic racism and elitism in such a story.

If you show me a person who believes Lord of the Rings is a true story, I'm not going to generously grant that he's "taking a different path to the same truth". I'm going to say he's gotten one type and context of truth confused with another, and fallen off the deep end in the process. I'm not much more generous in how I feel about the way most believers approach religion and spiritualism.

I'll show you a poem I wrote a few years ago. Consider this a demonstration of my ability to not only appreciate but to live in and work within realms that are less solid than bricks.

More Words

Language is something better than the swollen
tongue which speaks it. The time in between and all
our thinking about it burrows beneath the skin
to remain unnoticed. It is in the nature of this silence,
recorded only as an example in a right-hand column
on green-lined paper or in flashes of insight
when one would rather be sleeping.

Language is greater than accomplishment, deeper
than one's unbroken gaze. Yet we become more
and more undone by it, made and remade not
so much in our own likeness, but within a consistency
of style that we did not know that we possessed,
always before morning, before we might see ourselves
becoming any wiser in the process.

Language is the better half of denial. One could try
to improve the patterns we settle into, but eventually
we will settle. Earnestly, even reverently, we climb
over a tangled confluence of hellos and goodbyes
to reach a compromise between what is possessed
and what is loved. We know we have found our place,
and once we give it a name we can relax there.

Language is faster than the barn door, language
is fleeing with the horses. I do not say I know you
but I remember every word you say.


Kerry Shetline, 1999

[manic expression]

144. Refute?

In that case, I was adding something, as my title pointed out.

"If I'm gravely ill and have a need for a new heart, but there isn't a matching organ available to suit my need, I will die. It's not only that we can't always attain what we need, but what we need simply may not exist at all. The universe is in no way obligated to satisfy my needs, even my most pressing needs. I don't see how this unfortunate fact can be denied (although I can imagine some of the amusing attempts to redefine "need" which might be proffered in order to try)."

There are many facets to what you have said. First, it is a fact of existence that all forms of life end. That much is undeniable. No one needs to live forever, indeed no one should. In this case, your body is in need of a new heart to continue functioning, that is all.

Nothing is forced to fulfill certain needs, but there is an obligation to do so. If individuals neglect the needs of themselves, their kin and/or society, what happens? They fall apart.

"I can also "need" a cigarette, and get one, but fulfilling this particular "need" isn't necessarily good for me."

You don't need a cigarette, your body may need it to continue as normal (many get sick if they try to quit cigarettes), or your subconscious may demand it out of addiction, but you don't truly need it. There is a huge difference there.

"My point? A person's "need" for something "spiritual" does not in any way imply that a spiritual world to satisfy that need actually exists. (To use some popular fundy-speak, a "God shaped hole" doesn't imply or prove the existence of a God which will be able to fill that hole.) Further, the things that people do find which seem to satisfy their needs aren't necessarily "good" or "true" simply because they produce satisfaction (unless you limit your pursuit of truth to finding whatever "truly" makes you feel satisfied without looking at any broader picture.)"

I don't NEED spirituality in my life, I simply appreciate it (among other things). It's not integral to my functions as a living being to have spirituality, so it's not a basic necessity. However, that has no bearing on its existence. Religion/spirituality is something that is not a necessity, just as art or science is not a necessity in this regard. To explore the world around us, on the other hand, religion/spirituality is a necessity, and that is the important thing.

"No need to wonder such a thing, since I don't deem any such thing. To me the important meaning of tolerance is that we don't kill people simply because we disagree on religious matters, that we don't refuse to hire them, and that we don't fill their parked cars with stinky cheese on hot summer days in response to our theological disputes. I don't, however, confuse "tolerance" with a bankrupt lack of intellectual rigor (use of pablum like "different paths to the same truth" can be a shining example) which is often employed to make tolerance easier to come by."

The sentiment that you characterized so eloquently as "singing kumbaya" is tolerance. Saying that different paths lead to the same truth is not lacking intellectual rigor, as it actually uses common sense, as well as rationality.

How do you earn a living? How do you eat your dinner? What makes you happy? Any of these questions (along with infinite amounts of others) will get different answers from different people. They answer the same thing in a different way.

How many ways can you write 4? 4, 2+2, 3+1, 1+3, 5-1, 0+4... There are endless ways.

How many lines can there be from the outside of a circle to the center of that same circle? There is no end to the number of lines (fact).

Please, any small degree of thought would bring anyone to the same conclusion.

"If you think a rational/empirical approach means that every useful concept has to be as physically solid as a brick I can put in your hand, you're arguing against your own straw man. I'd have to type pages and pages of text to begin to address that misapprehension, however, so for now I'll just suggest you look into the matter more yourself."

I didn't say I thought that, I was just asking (as I indicated). Why? Because many have that misconception. Thanks.

"And I hope you can understand that a person can be rational and empirical while still being able to explore and appreciate that which is non-rational and irrational and vague and symbolic and poetic and poorly defined and laden with emotion. The trick is to be able to find God in a song or a sunset, and not confuse that God with a God who has a strange fixation over what you do with your genitalia, or with some God who's actually listening when you pray for finding your lost car keys."

And what I was hoping you would understand is that expressing something in a way other than pure rationality is not automatically incorrect. If by "the trick" you mean not being a RW fundamentalist, you should know that many theists have mastered your "trick" without even knowing it.

[Silent3]

148. You need? What about what I need?

Nothing is forced to fulfill certain needs, but there is an obligation to do so. If individuals neglect the needs of themselves, their kin and/or society, what happens? They fall apart.

Let's back up... Someone else, not you, was talking as if the fact that they felt that a "need" for something spiritual in their lives was practically tantamount to proof that the objects of their spiritual belief had to exist.

I tried to refute that. In apparent refutation to my refutation, you said "Well, satisfying a need is certainly a source of satisfaction" -- which seemed to me a curiously non-apropos tautology, but I tried to do the best to respond as I could.

If you yourself aren't the type to insist that a "God-shaped hole in your heart" obligates the universe to provide a same-shaped God to fill that hole, we have no argument on that count.

How many ways can you write 4? 4, 2+2, 3+1, 1+3, 5-1, 0+4... There are endless ways.

The existence of many, or even infinite correct solutions does not mean all solutions are correct. 5+88 is not a correct way to write 4. In my experience, those friendly, affable folk in the "kumbaya" crowd, when they breezily refer to a plethora of faiths as "different paths to the same truth", aren't bothering to do the math. They can't even clearly state what this "same truth" is supposed to be, and that's even before you get to the fact that they've shown no good way to reconcile all the mutually incompatible claims of numerous faiths which seem very unlikely to be pointing in the same direction.

If by "the trick" you mean not being a RW fundamentalist, you should know that many theists have mastered your "trick" without even knowing it.

The "trick" I'm referring to is being able to grasp and appreciate cultural and poetic notions of gods and spirits and the like, without insisting that there has to be some fundamental aspect of the universe, that there has to be something more than fanciful ways of satisfying human psychological needs, behind those notions. I suspect more LW-ers and RW-ers can master that trick, but what I'm talking about isn't necessarily a LW/RW thing.

[manic expression]

149. Let's

Again, I was just adding a few things, I thought your conversation was interesting, so I made a few comments. Sorry if it was confusing (and thanks for responding anyway).

There are infinite ways to correctly write 4. 5+88 is a correct way to write 93, not 4, so that isn't part of my point. Since there are infinite ways to write 4, we can see that there are many paths to the same thing, the same truth, if you will.

The people you refer to are saying that any way one finds satisfaction and understanding is valid. The truth is simply the truth, meaning the world around us, everything in it and everything beyond it, the deeper meaning of everything (there are some other ways to explain it, but it ultimately expresses the same thing). Since that definition is kind of tedious to explain, it's probably seldom defined in such a manner. I've explained how many paths can lead to the same thing, now apply it to the subject at hand: the "truth" of all things. I hope that helps.

Well, you can believe such notions without insisting upon shoving them down people's throats. That's the most important thing to me, at least.

[Silent3]

152. I'm afraid that's not saying much of anything

There are infinite ways to correctly write 4. 5+88 is a correct way to write 93, not 4, so that isn't part of my point. Since there are infinite ways to write 4, we can see that there are many paths to the same thing, the same truth, if you will.

You're still glossing over that fact that there are many paths that don't lead to the same thing.

The people you refer to are saying that any way one finds satisfaction and understanding is valid.

"Valid" in what sense of the word valid? Valid as a drug, valid as a therapy?

Person A says you have to pray to the moon three times every Monday to attain salvation, and those who don't, or who pray to anything other than the moon, are going to hell. Person B says you have to pray to the sun once per day and twice on Sundays to attain salvation, and those who don't, or who pray to anything other than the sun, are going to hell.

What common truth would these two belief systems lead to? Who ends up saved, who ends up in hell? Everyone? No one? Person A branches off into a private universe where people like Person B are all burning in hell, while Person B branches off into a private universe where A gets toasted instead? Does A get to see a real B suffering, or do we just give A a fake B and the illusion that reality worked out just as his faith told him it would?

Is the common truth only something as bland as "believing in something really hard, practically anything, gives these people a sense of purpose in life"? What kind of a cut-rate, anti-climatic truth is that? Is the common truth "prayer is good"? That sure isn't the Truth with a Capital T that A and B both think they posess.

Well, you can believe such notions without insisting upon shoving them down people's throats. That's the most important thing to me, at least.

For my part, I'm not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. I'm just sitting back alternately bemused and appalled by the stuff people are willing to swallow on their own.

[manic expression]

153. And

what else is there in this equation. Well, as I pointed out, all numbers have a commonality (2/1, 3/1...). Beyond that, to say that 33+2=4 is not true. That is an incorrect statement in regards to 4. It is also true that there are incorrect statements about the world, such as racist statements.

Valid? It's a pretty clear word. Means something like viable and something that pertains to the subject at hand.

Your straw-man arguments are pretty invalid. Both Person A and Person B are both wrong for having intolerant beliefs. However, having a set day of prayer alone does not constitute understanding (which was the whole point of the sentiment I explained). What are their actual beliefs?

Subtracting the intolerance you injected into it, those practices are not so ridiculous. They pray to the moon and sun, entities that are very important in our world. The sun is what the earth and therefore all of us revolve around, it helps give life. The moon is also extremely important; in addition to being very beautiful, it controls the tides, which is an integral part of life and the environment. Those are truths.

The intolerance is the problem, and you will find that many who are tolerant (kumbayaists, you call them?) are critical of intolerance.

What are you amused by? Do you know the philosophies of every religion on earth? Even if you disagree with religion, it is whimsical to chuckle at a school of thought for little reason. I think that it's a bit like a bunch of kids laughing at certain (ethnic) groups of people because they eat different food than they do. A little perspective goes a long way.

[Silent3]

160. New rule: Intolerance doesn't count!

It is also true that there are incorrect statements about the world, such as racist statements.

Ah, so "different paths to the same truth" only applies to tolerant religions and spiritual beliefs. I see!

Valid? It's a pretty clear word. Means something like viable and something that pertains to the subject at hand.

No, the issue of "validity" isn't as easy as you want to pretend that it is. All of these religions are valid to what ends? Valid by what metrics? Valid in what contexts?

I think you might be applying a very watered-down metric that a religion is "valid" as long as it does nothing more than make a person feel better and get along better with his fellow man. Sure, those are good results, but it ignores not only the kinds of metrics a skeptic like myself would apply, but it ignores the views of many practitioners themselves.

When a lot Christians say "Jesus died for my sins" they don't mean it metaphorically, they don't mean "well, I don't really know that it actually happened that way, but it's a nice story to pretend to go along with" -- they mean that they believe that there was an historically real person who was Jesus, who was the Son of a their particular version of God and born by a virgin, who in some historically real event was crucified, that He really rose from the dead three days later, that he really ascended bodily into some place called heaven, and that somehow this death helps set things up so that having faith in Jesus keeps you from burning up in hell (a hell which, since we're only counting the tolerant folk, isn't really "burning" exactly, it just isn't quite so nice as being in heaven). I guess the tolerant Christians (the ones who by your standards are allowed to be considered on the Path to Truth with all the other good folk) kind of soften some of the details up here so that even non-Christians can come out okay too, as long they're good people or something like that.

What part of all of that Christian dogma, even when softened up to be tolerant of non-Christians, is "valid" at the same time that stuff believed by tolerant Muslims and tolerant Hindus and tolerant Sikhs is true? Can polytheism and monotheism be simultaneously true? If you answer "yes" to that, would most of the believers recognize the what's left after the mental gymnastics you might perform ("like, wow, all those different gods could be like, you know, different aspects of the same god") as having much to do with what they themselves claim to believe in?

Subtracting the intolerance you injected into it, those practices are not so ridiculous. They pray to the moon and sun, entities that are very important in our world.

I suppose praying to real bears wouldn't be so ridiculous as praying to stuffed teddy bears either. News flash: no one has ever demonstrated an special efficacy in praying to the sun or the moon, nor is there any known mechanism by which one could expect a big space rock or a big fusion-heated ball of gas and plasma to respond to verbal or mental entreaties made by humans.

But this praying stuff still counts as part of a "path to truth" if it makes the one praying feel better and if it reaps benefits indistinguishable from pretty much any placebo effect?

[manic expression]

164. Who said it was new?

"Ah, so 'different paths to the same truth' only applies to tolerant religions and spiritual beliefs. I see!"

No one ever said everything was right, so don't put words in anyone's mouth. The point is that there are wrong things (yes, even kumbayaists would agree), and they should not be thought of as valid. Did you really think the kumbayaists like Nazis?

All religions are valid. Valid in relation to the concept of truth. It really is simple

I'll go along with your Christianity example. The Christian belief that Jesus died for humanity's sins IS valid. Does it mean that all beliefs are sane? Not really. Does it mean that all beliefs are rational? No (early Christians even despised logic as a matter of principle, the Greco-Roman faiths embraced it). Validity is a completely separate issue from any of those other measurements.

Look at it this way. If someone proposes a theory that some characteristics acquired by an organism are passed onto their offspring, is that "valid"? It is "valid", as it is something that should be considered and explored, but that has little to do with its veracity.

"What part of all of that Christian dogma, even when softened up to be tolerant of non-Christians, is "valid" at the same time that stuff believed by tolerant Muslims and tolerant Hindus and tolerant Sikhs is true? Can polytheism and monotheism be simultaneously true? If you answer "yes" to that, would most of the believers recognize the what's left after the mental gymnastics you might perform ("like, wow, all those different gods could be like, you know, different aspects of the same god") as having much to do with what they themselves claim to believe in?"

How can they all be right? Well, remember my little number metaphor (2/1, 1/1, 4/1...). They all have commonalities, and that is what is true (according to theists, mind you). Again, a religion as a whole may be valid while its tenets may openly flaunt logic. Ultimately, it's about the ultimate aspects of something, meaning virtually all religions agree on at least one thing: there is divinity. For the sake of discussion, we shouldn't argue whether divinity exists or not (it's not the point), let's just talk about whether religions agree or not.

Polytheism and monotheism can both be right, it's called pantheism. Anyway, a monotheist could respectfully say that s/he believes only one god is god, while a polytheist could respectfully disagree and say there are many gods. The only problem is how you disagree on that relatively semantic detail.

"I suppose praying to real bears wouldn't be so ridiculous as praying to stuffed teddy bears either."

How so? You'd be praying to bears either way, and that's the important thing. I already explained how it is reasonable and acceptable to pray to aspects of the world around us, so apply those comments to this situation.

"News flash: no one has ever demonstrated an special efficacy in praying to the sun or the moon, nor is there any known mechanism by which one could expect a big space rock or a big fusion-heated ball of gas and plasma to respond to verbal or mental entreaties made by humans."

It doesn't matter if it responds or not on a physical level (or any readily observable level, for that matter). If someone is hurt, I hope they get better, but has it been proven to help them by "any known mechanism"? Of course not, but that doesn't make me not give a sh*t about other people. I respect certain people in my life, but does that make them live longer? Who really cares? You ignore that while the sun is a ball of gas, that is not the end of the story. Without that ball of gas, how would you survive? You wouldn't. Prayer to such an entity recognizes this fact of existence; such prayer also recognizes the fact that all aspects of the universe are important, connected (fact) and more. Also, you ignore that this line of logic would make you just a bundle of matter and nothing more. However, anyone can tell you people are more than bundles of cells. I hope you could, too.

[Silent3]

168. Valid use of the word valid?

Did you really think the kumbayaists like Nazis?

Not at all. What I really think is that if I kept digging and questioning, I'd keep finding more and more unspoken rules about who belongs to the "different paths to the same truth" club and who doesn't.

All religions are valid.

Err... except the intolerant ones, you forgot to say. I wonder what else you're forgetting to say?

Valid in relation to the concept of truth. It really is simple

No, it's not really simple. You might think it's simple, but that's only because you're being vague and inexact in your usage of words. The way I see it, saying things like, "All religions are valid" is all about trying to convey a spirit of openness and tolerance and inclusiveness -- all noble sentiments -- but I'd rather see people find ways to express all of those things and get along together, but without playing words games and creating philosophically meaningless fluff in the process.

From dictionary.com:

val·id
adj.

  1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
  2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
  3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
  4. Logic.
      1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
      2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
  5. Archaic. Of sound health; robust.

Which of these meanings of "valid" do you have in mind? If (1), just what exactly are all of these religions grounded in? If (2), what desired result is produced? Is the only validity here that the practitioner feels better practicing their faith? Religion if efficacious like a placebo treatment can be efficacious? If you mean more than that, what's the more?

But please, don't dig deeper... It'll be much easier to repeat "it's simple really" and leave it at that.

You'd be praying to bears either way, and that's the important thing.

And why on earth would that be important, and not a delusional waste of time?

I already explained how it is reasonable and acceptable to pray to aspects of the world around us, so apply those comments to this situation.

You explained nothing. You pointed out that people often pray to things which are important or powerful -- that's not the same thing as explaining why it's reasonable to pray to those things. Maybe the notion that important things are things you should pray to follows automatically in your mind, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable.

As for acceptable... anything anyone does that isn't harmful to another person is acceptable to me. It might seem foolish to me, but that hardly matters to acceptability.

If we reduce prayer down to nothing more than a symbolic gesture, a thing a person does only to express awareness of things which are important -- then maybe you might be closer to have a point to make here. But by reducing prayer thus, you're taking away from prayer what prayer means to a lot of the people out there doing a lot of praying -- for many believers, prayer is meant as a means of sending a message to a being who might offer comfort and assistance, or a means of expressing gratitude to an entity capable of being aware of that gratitude.

If someone is hurt, I hope they get better, but has it been proven to help them by "any known mechanism"?

Hope is more of a condition than an action. If you become ill, my mental state of not liking the fact that you are ill, and of looking forward to such a time as you feel better becomes "I hope you feel better soon". Just wanting things to be different than they are is all you need for hope exist -- you don't need to be ascribing some mystical power to hope, or to choose to hope as if hoping were an action you were taking, in order to experience hope.

You ignore that while the sun is a ball of gas, that is not the end of the story. Without that ball of gas, how would you survive? You wouldn't.

I can fully recognize all of this and still see absolutely no reason to pray to the sun -- unless I'm fearful that a lack of gratitude might deprive me of the benefits of the sun, or ascribe other mystical powers to the sun which are unfounded. Unless...

such prayer also recognizes the fact that all aspects of the universe are important, connected (fact) and more.

...unless, as I mentioned before, we reduce prayer to nothing more than a symbolic gesture of recognition.

My big point is this: I openly state my unfavorable opinions about religion. The "Kumbayaists" attempt to be generous and embracing towards all (er... most) religions. I accept that their intentions are good. But if you start to dig into what phrases like "different paths to the same truth" mean, you find nothing more than vagueness and philosophical fluff masquerading as wisdom. In order to come even close to resolving all of the logical inconsistencies of the Kumbayaist position, the Kumbayaists are forced to distort what the various believers they're trying to embrace believe in -- to a point that is almost condescending when you think about it. You turn their gods into a mere aspect of some other and greater concept of divinity. You reduce their dogma and prayers to symbolic stories and actions.

"Look! What a beautiful way you've found to connect with the Oneness with that quaint old ritual of yours. Isn't that nice?"

[manic expression]

173. Of course

Your "digging" is misled. The point is that it isn't an exception at all. Why? Because (for example) racism is not a path, it is a state of being lost. You COULD consider it a "path", but is it correct? No. You put words in others' mouths and try to make it seem as though being intolerant of intolerance is intolerant. In fact, it is not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance (a double negative is a positive).

"Intolerant religions"? Someone can think that all other religions are wrong, but that is a problem when put into action. The part of even the most intolerant religion that, according to theists, is correct, is why said theists can say it leads to the same truth. Again, intolerant ACTION is the problem. The most insane Christian fundamentalist and the most liberal minded neopagan can agree on certain things. In relation to these certain things, a lunatic belief system is still not 100% wrong on the important matters.

On validity, I would say that the first definition applies. According to those you are talking about, saying there is divinity, no matter from what persuasion, is "grounded and just". Keep in mind that this is in relation to a certain mindset (so saying that there's no evidence for divinity is completely irrelevant).

It is, really, quite simple.

I've very extensively explained how such a practice can reasonably be considered important and not a waste of time. However, I'll repeat myself. Praying to bears is showing respect for an important member of the world and the community one lives in. Praying to bears recognizes how these animals are living creatures with qualities that are beyond our own. If you think it's a waste of time, that's your opinion, or should I say your path?

The fact that those entities are important IS, perhaps partially, the point. The reasons I gave form (some of) the reasons people do engage in prayer. Anyone could see that those reasons were not unreasonable at all, and in fact, they are quite reasonable indeed.

I think those are great grounds for acceptability.

Prayer is symbolic, but it is also much more. It serves as a cultural function, a place where people can meet and find commonality; it serves as a link to our ancestors; it serves as a way to cleanse the mind (for many people, although not all of course); it serves as a time to dwell on things greater and more profound than everyday happenings. There are other ways prayer helps as well. First, it is proven that all things are connected. Therefore, it is perfectly fine to connect with any entity, be it a person or a deity or a ball of gas, through prayer or likewise activity. The sun, for instance, is undeniably a part of our lives, so sending thoughts toward it (a definition you used, I believe) is certainly not devoid of reason.

To hope is an action (to hope is a verb, no?). If I become ill and you wish me to get better, that is itself an action which expresses that desire. In this case, that mental and emotional desire is for a change on the physical level. "Wanting things to be different" is a sentiment which implores such change (as well as showing an individual's desires), and there is nothing wrong with that. This is little different from prayer. Furthermore, if you do consider it a "condition", then praying is an equal condition, would you not agree?

It doesn't have to be a fear that not praying will bring about the sun's wrath (although greenhouse gases apparently do), it can simply be about recognizing the contributions the sun brings to us. I can thank someone without fearing that they won't help me again if I don't thank them.

I've also said that prayer is partially symbolic, but it is more and it should be more.

I have no problem with opinions. Kumbayaists are widely tolerant of all religions (no exceptions, really, as I've explained). The issue we've dealt with was not specifically one of religion, but one of general intolerance, which is not intertwined with religion. Such phrases do express a better understanding of the world, some of which I've explained through many examples and similes. That is hardly "fluff", and is quite the opposite. This is in addition to the fact that it is driven by good intentions, which is as much as one can really ask. The arguments which address (and, IMO, debunk) your assertions that such beliefs have "logical inconsistencies" are made above. However, there are no significant inconsistencies, because the kumbayaists do not ignore or distort what people believe in, they simply acknowledge and celebrate the common and important things that lead to the "truth" (subjective, yes, but that's not what this is about). It's anything but condescending, because it's seeing that the simple fact of believing in any god is what matters, instead of the name or the culture or the nature or the semantics of the belief system. It observes that no matter what you call it or how you recognize it, the truth remains the same.

[Silent3]

176. Path-o-logic

Why? Because (for example) racism is not a path, it is a state of being lost. You COULD consider it a "path", but is it correct? No.

It's a good thing you're around to tell people what is and isn't a "path".

The part of even the most intolerant religion that, according to theists, is correct, is why said theists can say it leads to the same truth.

Which theists? Which "same truth"?

Again, intolerant ACTION is the problem.

Again, rampant vagueness is the problem. What is this "same truth"? Some safely neutered, homogenized, pasteurized, approved for general audiences fluff like, "We are all part of the Oneness. We all participate in the Divine. Can't we all just get along?"?

The most insane Christian fundamentalist and the most liberal minded neopagan can agree on certain things.

That the world would be a better place if the other would just go away? :evilgrin:

To hope is an action (to hope is a verb, no?).

A verb is "a word which describes an action, state, or occurrence", so, no, just because you try to turn my noun usage of hope into the verb "to hope" doesn't make hope a deliberate action.

Furthermore, if you do consider it a "condition", then praying is an equal condition, would you not agree?

I do not agree. Prayer is more active than hope. Prayer is used as a way of attempting to either improve the odds of a hope-for outcome, or as a way of trying to receive comfort or wisdom for dealing with a negative outcome. Prayer is typically an entreaty made to gods or supernatural forces as a request for assistance or an expression of gratitude -- a much more active thing than simply finding oneself in a state of wishing something was different than it currently is.

I can thank someone without fearing that they won't help me again if I don't thank them.

I already included expressions of gratitude as a possible motivation for prayer, not just fear. But when I thank a person, I know I'm being nice to someone who can appreciate my expression of gratitude. If I thank the sun, I'm either acting as if I have a supernatural belief that the sun is a personality capable of experiencing gratitude, or I'm just going through some sort of purely symbolic gesture.

There are other ways prayer helps as well. First, it is proven that all things are connected.

Ugh... not this again.

The connections between all objects which arise from known physical laws don't buy you squat towards the New-Agey mystical kinds of connections so many people like to try to imagine. The tremendously feeble influence any prayer to the sun would have on the sun is utterly indistinguishable from the effect that a prayer to Mars would have upon the sun, or that uttering a curse towards the sun would have, or that reading the ingredients label on a cereal box or tapping your toe three times would have.

Imagine all of the physical influences on the sun were a musical composition. Things like the inner planets would be bright, clear notes. The outer planets, quieter notes, and nearby stars, quieter still. All other influences could be thought of like a faint hiss of background noise. Your prayer? Like the hiss from a radio which was playing a thousand miles away -- in other words, an effect so close to zero that only by the rarest of statistical coincidences would there be any noticeable effect at all, and even then with no meaningful correlation to the intents and thoughts in your prayer.

If you want to believe that there's some universal spiritual connection between all things, be my guest, but please don't take on the mantle of science to act as if that sort of notion of connections is "proven".

The issue we've dealt with was not specifically one of religion, but one of general intolerance, which is not intertwined with religion.

I see themes of intolerance come up time and time again in religion, and intolerance of the darkest kind is carried out in the name of religion with appalling frequency. It appears to me only wishful thinking to pretend that intolerance is merely some stray nastiness that creeps to sully an imagined purer core of truth in religion, rather than being a common and often integral theme.

The arguments which address (and, IMO, debunk) your assertions that such beliefs have "logical inconsistencies" are made above.

All you've done is make bald assertions about connections to some as-yet undefined "same truth" supposedly behind all religions, declared by fiat how things like intolerance are (I guess "obviously") instances of being "lost" as opposed to "on the path", and overlaid your own meta-religious principles on other peoples religious beliefs in ways which I doubt many of those believers would concur were a correct assessment of their own beliefs.

[manic expression]

179. Nice play on words

What you continue to ignore is that racism isn't a philosophy on divinity, which is the subject that kumbayaism deals with (as in not anthropology). It doesn't contradict what you are trying to criticize in any way.

I've outlined what this "truth" entails. I know you may not think it is "truth", but that has absolutely no relevance in this discussion. The "truth" is the deeper existence and nature of the world (and all the individual entities of it). It doesn't matter if someone follows Christianity or Shintoism or Islam or otherwise, as all religions do lead to a common destination.

No, your refusal to comprehend what I'm saying is the problem. Deal with my points and perhaps your perception of vagueness will lessen. One of the central parts of this discussion is that we are dealing with the "truth" that is accepted by the kumbayaists. Of course it's not a "truth" to everyone, but is IS a "truth" to the kumbayaists, and recognizing this is key to understand such a mindset.

Not completely. Although they may express that sentiment when it comes to everything but their few common thoughts, there is more to the story. Both people would be able to say that divinity exists, and that is what is referred to when people say all paths are sufficient.

"To hope", as a verb, can be an action, so that's not an incorrect comment. "I hope you're OK" would be a deliberate action. Surely you are not suggesting that when someone hopes for something, they are just in "a state".

First of all, prayer can be many things. Many would say that living one's life is prayer. However, prayer and hoping for someone's improvement of health (for instance) are very similar. When you pray for something specific, the action of hoping is directed toward a specific entity. When you hope for something, the action is directed toward the idea or the subject of desire (else it is generally directed, which prayer can be as well). The fact that prayer is sometimes followed up with a "thank you" or something else doesn't change anything. When someone gets better after I hope for their improvement (hope being the past tense of an action), I feel relieved, which is only different from prayer in the way it is expressed (much like the small difference in direction that I expained above).

Why do you presume that fear must be the main motivation for such worship? People can express gratitude toward the sun or any other entity without fear as a motivation. For instance, Celtic legends often portrayed their deities in a heroic light, not in a way that would elicit fear like the stories of the Old Testament.

Another example:



Pretty scary image, right? Well, notice that two of the hands are empty. One of the gestures asks the observer not to fear, and the other signifies that she will protect the observer. The fact is that prayer can be done for many reasons, and while fear may be one of them, it is by no means the only or major one.

Yeah, here we go. First, I would like to inform you that such a philosophy has been around for quite awhile, as in since the first civilizations. Calling it "New-Agey" is as incorrect as it is laughable. At any rate, the fact that all things ARE connected (fact) shows us a few things. This is not only something that indicates a connection on one level, but on many others. The physical connection is a parallel of deeper connections. If you see smoke, you know there is fire, so such ideas are not irrational.

The sun may have physical influences on it greater than human beings, but does that really matter in this regard? Physical properties do not account for other properties. While physical force may be proportional to distance, other influences do not have to be. Therefore, the strength of connection on a physical level does not necessarily indicate the nature of the connection on deeper levels.

Don't be so quick to dismiss something. You have stated that completely empirical evidence is not needed to show rational principles.

Intolerance is carried out in every field. Saying religion is "darker" than ethnic divisions or nationalist delusions is simply wrong. If what you say is true, then government, science, art and other institutions and fields are equally "dark". If not for scientific progress, how would be incinerate entire cities? If not for art, who would make propaganda? Religion can be wrongly used for wrondoing, but that does nothing to make it at any fault.

No. I have, many times over, explained concepts that are not unreasonable. Your own assessment of my arguments seem to have little to truly do with them.

[bluesbassman]

34. It's not a special virtue.

The so-called "leap of faith" is a response to a promise. What is often not examined in regard to faith, is that faith is a rational response when it is based on the promises of God. All humans demonstrate faith in some way or another. As a child, your parents promise to take you camping. Does it not require faith to believe that the promised trip will take place? As an adult, your spouse or life partner promises to remain faithful. Does that not require faith that they will honor their promise? In regards to Christianity, faith is based on the promises of God. So therefore if one accepts the concept of God being incapable of breaking a promise, then it would indeed be rational to have faith in His promises. Irrationality occurs when people ascribe to God things which He never promised.

The main problem that humans face is the "delivery" of God's promises. As we are sensory beings, and a bit impatient also, we tend to think that God is obligated to deliver on His promises in our time frame and physical understanding. Some people feel that if they kick and scream enough, God will acquiesce to their tirades. Well it has never worked for my kids, and I doubt it works on God.

I realize that empirical data and reason are the foundation of many people's life experience, and I respect that process of experiencing life. I also realize that if you do not accept the concept of God, then it follows that there are no promises of God, so therefore faith in those "promises" would naturally be irrational. I only offer my understanding of faith as what it is; my understanding of the basis for faith in regards to Christianity.

[Silent3]

64. Leaping lizards!

The term "leap of faith" is generally used to describe the process by which someone decides to believe in God (or perhaps some other object of faith), starting from an undecided stance and faced with a lack of compelling evidence.

If you describe this leap as "a response to a promise", you're either not talking about the "leap of faith" as anyone else typically understands the concept, or you're talking about responding to a promise from an entity the existence of which you have not even decided to believe as yet.

As for what you said about faith, "It's not a special virtue" -- I agree completely. But let's not pretend that it's not very common in popular culture to treat faith, particularly religious faith, as though it is a virtue, and that possessing such faith or committing oneself to such faith makes a person more virtuous.

Your examples of non-religious faith seem particular odd, since these are the kinds of things -- that parents will take a kid camping, that a spouse will maintain sexual exclusivity -- by which faith is routinely and commonly demonstrated to have been poorly placed.

Irrationality occurs when people ascribe to God things which He never promised.

Irrationality also occurs when people think invisible sky friends are making promises of any sort whatsoever. :)

Not quite done with this post... but I've got to take someone to an eye doctor appointment now.

[Silent3]

83. Leaping lizards! (cont.)

The main problem that humans face is the "delivery" of God's promises. As we are sensory beings, and a bit impatient also, we tend to think that God is obligated to deliver on His promises in our time frame and physical understanding. Some people feel that if they kick and scream enough, God will acquiesce to their tirades. Well it has never worked for my kids, and I doubt it works on God.

It seems a whole lot more straightforward skip not only the impatience and the tirades, but to bypass the expectation entirely that there's anyone out there providing any promises or any answers to prayers. Why make up a system of rules by which you can think things are coming to you, but it's nicely worked out so that you can't really ever tell when or how anything you expect is ever happening?

[bluesbassman]

97. Faith is still based on promise.

It is true that faith placed in the wrong concepts or the wrong people is sometimes irrational. And it can also result from misunderstanding or misinterpretation. But how have you proven that faith in God falls in that category? Because you find no proof in the existence of God, and therefore you are the final word which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist? Where is your empirical data to back up that position? Is the proof you possess that God does not exist lie only in the fact that you have not personally seen God? You ask for proof from theists that God exists, but what you are asking for is proof that fits into your box. When a theist offers their reason for faith and belief in God, you dismiss it out of hand because you can't quantify, measure or see it. Have you done an in-depth study of God on which you base you rejection? Or is it just the way you "feel"? And please don't feel obligated to bring out the "tooth fairy-easter bunny-santa claus" line, it's getting a little shopworn.

Many people post in this forum to ask and answer questions. You on the other hand provide no answers except trite responses like this;

I can't say this is absolutely universally true, but nearly all theists I've encountered who spend much time thinking about their beliefs soon realize that neither empirical data nor "reason alone" will get them where they're they're trying to go, hence they end up having to say that "faith" is required. I'd call these leaps of faith unjustified -- while of course theists try to dress up the making of such leaps as a kind of special virtue.

So you don't think it's "absolutely universally true", but yet you claim that nearly all theists you know at some point abandon empirical data and reason to make "leaps of faith" that are unjustified. Then you throw in another of your digs, calling it a "special virtue'. Just what empirical data are they abandoning? Please enlighten me with the evidence you possess that proves God does not exist.

Continuing to dismiss faith, you use this reasoning;

If you describe this leap as "a response to a promise", you're either not talking about the "leap of faith" as anyone else typically understands the concept, or you're talking about responding to a promise from an entity the existence of which you have not even decided to believe as yet.

And;

The term "leap of faith" is generally used to describe the process by which someone decides to believe in God (or perhaps some other object of faith), starting from an undecided stance and faced with a lack of compelling evidence.

What evidence do you have to support those statements? And who are these "anyones" who typically understand the concept? Here is what I found to describe the term; "A leap of faith is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence." I find nothing in that statement that implies an "undecided stance". The scriptures contain much "compelling evidence" just not the "empirical data" you require. That you choose not to believe it is of course your prerogative. but it proves nothing about either the existence or non-existence of God. It's something you believe, unless you do in fact have empirical evidence to support your position.

And then you question my analogies of faith in this manner;

Your examples of non-religious faith seem particular odd, since these are the kinds of things -- that parents will take a kid camping, that a spouse will maintain sexual exclusivity -- by which faith is routinely and commonly demonstrated to have been poorly placed.

Maybe that's your whole issue Kerry, you have put faith into the wrong places. Yes my parents sometimes didn't follow through on what they had promised, and I've been lied to by love interests, but it's neither routine or common. Those instances of lack of performance by people have not caused me to discount or abandon faith. Unfortunately it appears you have not had the same experience, and perhaps this has led to your aversion to, and dismissal of, any form of faith.

And you conclude with this;

It seems a whole lot more straightforward skip not only the impatience and the tirades, but to bypass the expectation entirely that there's anyone out there providing any promises or any answers to prayers. Why make up a system of rules by which you can think things are coming to you, but it's nicely worked out so that you can't really ever tell when or how anything you expect is ever happening?

Well you're finally getting to some practical advice. Too bad it's based on your assumption and not on facts in evidence. You see I can tell exactly when what I expect is happening: If what I seek is supplied the answer is yes. If what I seek is not supplied the answer is no or not now. And I didn't even have to "work that out" at all. It's just one of those darned universal truths. But I suppose that kind of "empirical evidence" just doesn't fit into your box.

[Silent3]

123. You simply repeat "faith is based on a promise"...

...without then making the slightest effort to make the phrase make any more sense, and then go off trying to counter my previous post based on misplacing the burden of proof and other weird missing-the-pointisms I'd have difficulty classifying.

It is true that faith placed in the wrong concepts or the wrong people is sometimes irrational. And it can also result from misunderstanding or misinterpretation. But how have you proven that faith in God falls in that category?

I don't even believe God exists, how could it be my job to prove what categories this God fits into?

I'm in possession of the null hypothesis. You're the one with an elaborate metaphysics of Gods and promises and faith. You're of course welcome to any private fantasy you wish to indulge in, and I'm perfectly well aware that you, just like many people, are amazingly capable of clinging to your ideas no matter what. I'm challenging the public value of your ideas about God and faith, and you're the one who has the burden to explicate these ideas if you think they have any value beyond personal fancy.

So you don't think it's "absolutely universally true", but yet you claim that nearly all theists you know at some point abandon empirical data and reason to make "leaps of faith" that are unjustified.

I'm just talking about the phrase, "leap of faith", and how it's commonly used. If I say the word "table" is commonly used to refer to flat surfaces support by legs used as household and office furnishings, are yo going to argue with my that I'm using unsupported facts until I produce a statistical survey on how people use the word "table"?

I've read books on philosophy in college, and read many philosophical discussion on line. What I say reflects my experiences, and if you'd like to challenge that experience, fine, be my guest. My caveat about "absolutely universally true" is merely my way of a saying that I know I'm making a generalization which doesn't apply to all people who claim faith and how they defend their faith.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the "leap of faith": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith

My usage of the term coincides with Wikipedia's explanation. You're doesn't. I think I've got a reasonable basis for saying your off on your own special thing with your "faith is a promise" stuff, and any claim that you'd like to make about leaps of faith being logical, rational acts.

You see I can tell exactly when what I expect is happening: If what I seek is supplied the answer is yes. If what I seek is not supplied the answer is no or not now. And I didn't even have to "work that out" at all. It's just one of those darned universal truths. But I suppose that kind of "empirical evidence" just doesn't fit into your box.

The comedian Steven Wright has a bit that goes something like this: "I came home today and found out that everything in my house and been stolen and replaced by an exact replica."

If Steven really believed this, how could I possibly prove him wrong? What makes this part of his routine funny is that you can see quite plainly, as stupid as the claim is, how it has a built-in structure which prevents complete logical refutation.

Your God who answers all prayers, but who sometimes answers "no", or sometimes takes a long time (perhaps even longer than your mortal life) to respond -- how is that God any different than no God at all, or a God who exists but ignores prayer?

[Zhade]

12. According to Harris' personal opinion, I think.

NT!

[Inland]

17. It pulls itself up by its own bootstraps.

After all, everyone knows who the irrational, immoral people are. It's somebody else. Harris gives himself away when he describes marxism as a form of religion rather than a group of atheists who claimed rationality and science.

[okasha]

18. Well, of course marxism is a religion.

No true atheist would commit genocide. . ..

I've been waiting for the sarcastic "no true Christian" folks to chime in on this, and all I've heard is crickets chirping.

[Inland]

19. I was tempted

but it was too easy- - -it's basically the OP excerpt's implication.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Satire

You do know what that is, right? My saying "No true atheist..." would be satire. Look it up.

And Sam Harris may say a lot of things that piss you off, but he is NOT subscribing to the No True Scotsman fallacy. He is saying that institutionalized (not PERSONAL, please not the difference) religion is not a good thing.

[greyl]

30. No, we can all agree on the rules of logic and rational thought.

At least so far as one is actually aware of them.
Whether or not we want to acknowledge and take advantage of them is the point of contention.

[Brentos]

6. Hmmmm....

I think the reason more people have been killed by religious folk, is that traditionally there have always been more religious folk, so when mankinds natural bad power-monger ways kick in, those who have the power tend to use it on those who don't. I imagine that it wouldn't matter if they were theistic or atheistic, the results would tend to be the same. The percentage of good/bad is probably statistically similar across all religions and atheists.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. I tend to agree with you

I think if you want your neighbor's wife, ox and lower forty it is much more socially acceptable to whack him because he doesn't believe as you do, and since the way you believe is the one true way, well you had no choice but to whack him and God would want you to have the spoils. On the other hand, if he is the same religion you are then peer pressure might keep you from whacking him. But if you want his stuff enough you'll whack him anyway.

[Evoman]

53. But eliminate the religion from this event.

If you eliminate religion in this example than the man has completely lost any justification for killing the neighbour. He is no longer a christian who killed a muslim. He is Jeff the Taylor who killed William the Ox-owner.

There is still peer pressure in a situation like this, without religion. Jeff doesn't kill William because he doesn't want to be oustracized (sp?) from the group, banished, or thrown in jail. So without religion, there is still punishment. Not only that, but Jeffs punishment would be based on his bad actions, not on his identifying with a certain group. Williams family may be mad at Jeff, but they won't want to kill the entire community in revenge because they share a religion with william!

Don't get me wrong. Hating other people would still happen. But take religion away as a justification, and then we can get to the meat of WHY other people hate us. Would Osama Bin Laden ever bomb Canada? Oh for sure, he has already declared us an enemy in his tapes...not because he is justified in it, but because we are also infidel. Without religion, Osama may be able to point at certain policies of the U.S he hates, but there would be no reason for him to attack Canada or other Infidel countries "just because".

I've hated individual people for a reason. There was the bully at school, there was the obnoxious manager at work, there was the arrogant prick in my neighbourhood. But I have never held hatred in my heart for a GROUP of people. Religion is just another one of those things, like race, that makes it super easy to hate "THAT" group of people. My girlfriend is a christian, one of my best friends is a muslim, and some of my family are catholics....and for the most part, becasue religion is unimportant and irrelevant to me, I can easily make friends of people that are religious (as long as they accept me, which many people don't because I am an atheist, ironically enough). I know WAY to many people who "can't stand the muslims" or don't want to be around "those mary-worshiping catholics". To these people, their muslim friend is an EXCEPTION. Thats a terrible way to think!

[Brentos]

57. I think...

I think if you eliminate religion from the equation, then there will be other reasons to hate/kill other groups. Whether it is by color, location, clothing, entertainment ideas, with or without religion groups of people form for power and control (which wouldn't change) and other reasons. I still posit that the same amount of killing would go on, as we still want the same resources and many don't want to share. Saddams, Castro's, Bush's, and others would still rise to power and want to control/conquer/protect/subjugate, etc. others. Sure, you wouldn't have the crusades, but Alexander the Great's, Napoleons, Assyrians, Egyptians, Hittites, etc., still throughout history would be trying to conquer each other for some reason or another. I've seen no evidence in history or psychology or sociology to make me believe otherwise, though I do admit to it being a possibility. Good discussion!

[Evoman]

62. Your right to a degree

People would find reasons to kill other groups...it just wouldn't be quite as easy. I really don't know if getting rid of religion would stop a lot of killing, since its never happened. My guess, seeing as how a lot of struggles don't make sense in the absense of religion, is that it would. The protestants and catholics in Ireland...what reason would there be for two groups of white people with no difference save religion to kill each other? If Pete the Protestant killed your dad, but you didn't know or cared he was Protestant, would you hate a large group of diverse people called protestants or would you hate Pete? If you hated just pete, what would be the chance that you would put a bomb on a bus full of people that aren't Pete?

Most people don't WANT war. Most people would rather not have their family and friends killed. Thats why so many leaders use religion to get followers. The leader himself may want to expand his land, but most people don't want to fight for that reason. Tell the people that the other group are heretics who want to eat your babies, and all of a sudden, you have your war.

A strong ideology has some of the same effects of religion, thats true. But in general, its difficult to convince people to accept your ideology unless you appeal to the same dogmatic centre of the person that religion touches. Again, that does not even mean that a person has to be religious to be dogmatic. Thats why being anti-religion is only part of my persona...I'm also anti-ideology to a large degree. But since this is a religious forum, I focus on religion.

I think the cause of most of the worlds problems is the lack of skepticism. People will believe all kinds of shit they were taught as kids without criticizing it. Whether it be communist propoganda, Church dogma, or just believing in faith healings and other woo-woo bullshit....its a lack of skepticism that leads people to accept things that have atrocious consequences. If we stopped believing everything our "leaders" stuffed down our throat, then maybe we could stop killing each other.

[Brentos]

67. Amen!

Your last paragraph nails it!

"I think the cause of most of the worlds problems is the lack of skepticism. People will believe all kinds of shit they were taught as kids without criticizing it. Whether it be communist propoganda, Church dogma, or just believing in faith healings and other woo-woo bullshit....its a lack of skepticism that leads people to accept things that have atrocious consequences. If we stopped believing everything our "leaders" stuffed down our throat, then maybe we could stop killing each other."

[varkam]

13. I agree to a point...

But atheists don't have the luxury of cloaking their genocidal tendencies behind a veil of morality. Inquisitors believed, part and parcel, that their actions were simply to glorify God and to save the souls of the damned. Why...they were doing those poor wretches a favor by subjecting them to torture that would make our interrogations look like an afternoon at Grandma's. Most of what went on during that time period had solid support in the book of Deuteronomy.

The theme that I do agree with, however, is that I think there is generally a zero correlation between morality and religion. Religious folks are nasty monkeys. Non-religious folks are nasty monkeys. Well, calling people nasty monkeys might upset some of the more theistic sensibilities around here (do monkeys have souls?) - but you get the point.

By the way, welcome to DU and especially the R/T forums. :toast:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CarbonDate]

29. The discussion of communist regimes....

...is a non sequitur and a deliberate distration.

The point is not whether or not atheists are inherently morally superior. If any such claim has been made, I've not seen it. It's whether we are inherently morally inferior, as theists claim. The actions of theistic regimes such as during the Inquisitions shows definitively that they are not, so it suits the theists to change the subject and point to "atheist regimes" (which is a misnomer, but I digress).

[Inland]

35. Now, THAT'S a non-sequitur, and a strawman.

I don't remember the discussion being whether atheists are inherently morally inferior. Who said that?

[varkam]

31. The difference is...

atheists don't claim to have the corner on the morality market. We don't exactly have a book that we can point to and say "See? It is moral to execute heretics!".

Besides that, the point of the OP was not to demonstrate that rulers such as Stalin and Mao were not atheists, but that unjustified belief held sway with their regimes which resulted in the deaths of millions. Even atheists can have unjustified beliefs. Can atheists commit genocidal atrocities? Sure. Are we going to tally up the death toll for the number of people who died defending their God versus the number of people who've died defending science and rationality? If so, I'd like to get a pool started.

[Inland]

36. "We don't exactly have a book

to say that we can point to and say 'See? It is moral to execute heretics!'.

No, but as Stalin and Pol Pot showed, atheists can execute people for other reasons. They end up just as dead. Those "unjustified beliefs".

The only out is in the definition of atheism as nothing, a not belief. One can never call atheism an unjustified belief, by definition, and people don't do anything, good or bad, for a negation. Nobody ever got out of bed in the morning because of their atheism. IT's just that atheists, like believers, tend to have other beliefs. Sometimes bad.

I don't understand the concept that atheism, being nothing, is somehow a vaccination against dumb or evil or dogmatic. It's just the flip side of the premise that religion is the source of evil in the world, the original sin, and remove it and the person is naturally rational and scientific.

Now, on to your wager.

I don't know why anyone would tally up a death toll, but let's measure it this way: let's find all the officially atheist states purportedly based on science and rationality that WEREN'T bloody failures. As atheism has been the official position of relatively few organized human endevours, I think we should look at the percentages rather than total. Looks like the atheism vaccination isn't effective to me.

[trotsky]

40. There was only one "official" atheist state, Inland.

Albania. :eyes:

[Inland]

42. So Albania's the only example of the official atheist state.

Even assuming that's true, atheism is one bloody, failed totalitarian state for one.

Thanks for illustrating my point better than I ever could. You've served your function as my foil adequately for one day.

[trotsky]

45. LOL

And Nazi Germany is one bloody, failed Christian totalitarian state.

Do you wake up every day hoping NOT to make a point?

[Inland]

73. Sorry, dude, you admit atheism is zero for one.

One "official" atheist state, one horrific, bloody, disgusting failure. And the best you can do is, "but nazi germany, that was a christian state!" Was it official? Oh, but only you get to use "official" as a dodge.

Too funny that you defend Albania and Stalin because they were atheist.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

126. I never defended Albania or Stalin.

Prove otherwise.

[Goblinmonger]

43. Unfair comparison

How about this one?

Lets find all the officially sanctioned atheist governments and compare their death tolls to those that were officially sanctioned theist governments. Yeah, that sounds like a fair comparison.

Of course you wouldn't want to do that because you know that the theists would get their ass kicked in that comparison. Sad but true. Sad. But true.

And as an English teacher, a foil doesn't always have to be the fool. Often times a foil can be used to show how ignorant, conceited, arrogant, and bigoted the protagonist is. Just saying. For example, in Ulysses, some would argue that Stephen is the foil to Bloom and Stephen shows us a lot of the shortcomings that Bloom has.

[Inland]

44. Go right ahead.

I guess you want to argue a difference in degree, not in kind. Have at it, since it makes MY point.

But even in relative terms, compare the UK, with an established religion in the 1920s, with the USSR during the same period.

Have fun now.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Um

I know you read trotsky's post. There has only been one country that was officially atheistic. Albania. Compare that to the Catholic countries that partook in the Inquistions, the wonderful theocracy on the east coast of America in 1660s (witch burnings, native american killings, Quaker deaths, etc., etc., etc.). That is just for a start.

You have fun now.

[Inland]

71. But atheism is zero for one. One intolerable, bloody, repressive failure.

NO officially atheistic country is remotely tolerable. Some officially religious countries were. That's true even if you make the only "official" atheist country. Count the USSR, Pol Pot, Mao's China, the Shining Path, and it's zero for several dozen.

Huh, I guess atheism isn't the cure for what ails humanity. Whoda thunk it.

[Quantess]

99. Mind if I jump in here?

Your point that "no officially atheistic country is remotely tolerable" is interesting, and probably true. Having an enforced policy of atheism suggests a government that wants to replace religion with the dogma of the government. It's as though the dogma replaces religion. "Officially atheist" governments discourage religion, so that the citizens won't be distracted from the official dogma.

There are many countries that are not "officially atheistic", rather unofficially just not very religious on average, and the atmospheres of those countries are very tolerable. In those cases, the government does not try to control peoples' belief systems, nor enforce dogma to replace religion. The U.S.A. does not have an official religion (for which I am thankful)! Countries such as the U.S. allow citizens to adhere to their beliefs, pretty much whatever those beliefs are. That includes being not-religious.

So, Inland, I think that your idea of atheism is that, if you aren't religious, then you will be force fed some kind of dogma instead, as a result. Am I close?

[Inland]

111. You mean, it's neither religion nor atheism, but liberal democracy

that provides the best? I'm not going to argue with that: that's MY thesis.

The entire religion vs atheism concept is largely a canard, thanks to extremists who want to make the world condition the result of a single causal factor. You can see all types here entirely wrapped up in the concept that atheism is the cure, just as you can see Allan Keyes running for office on the platform of religious revival as the cure for the US ills, neither of them being very accepting of the concept of tolerance and diversity....except in theory, while in practice anyone who disagrees is evil, benighted, or my favorite, collaborating and empowering evil.

[trotsky]

128. SECULAR liberal democracy, Inland.

You always forget that key ingredient for "your" magic system. (We'll ignore for the moment the fact that far more enlightened minds than yours came up with it long, long ago.)

Or do you think religion should have an official role in a government?

[Inland]

131. No point that I can discern here.

Not my job to figure it out, either.

[trotsky]

134. I asked you a question quite frankly.

Do you think that religion should have any official role in government?

[Inland]

136. It's Trotsky and his twenty questions.

I'm sortof a first amendment, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, guy myself. Now you can go away. I really don't have the time or patience for you to play inquisitor as part of an attempt to score points and act contrary to the spirit of intellectual inquiry.

[trotsky]

137. I'm not trying to score points, I'm just asking a simple question.

Now the question itself was in a yes/no format. You chose not to use either of those words, but instead referred to the First Amendment. That's great! I'm a big fan of it too. Should I interpret your answer as a yes or a no to my question:

Should religion have any official role in government?

[Quantess]

189. sshhh....

I think he's saying no.
I also think Inland doesn't want the argument to end, so don't push it.

[Goblinmonger]

119. Well, religion doesn't show very good numbers, either

Christianity. They are the religion of the Inquisition and the Crusades. zero for 1.

Lets move to Muslims. Oop, religion is zero for 2.

[trotsky]

48. Oooh, you are SOOOO close to getting it.

Was the UK's "established" religion forced upon the population?

[Goblinmonger]

49. Not to mention

that he completely ignores the likes of Henry VIII (kill a wife because you can't divorce) and others that were horrible. Doesn't want to talk about Cromwell because that cuts against his point. Sometimes I wonder if the obtuseness is deliberate or if he comes by it naturally.

[trotsky]

50. Well, it's always interesting...

to come across a person who, when faced with the undeniable reality of a religious group rapidly turning this country into a theocracy, and religious nuts blowing themselves up and flying planes into buildings, instead sets his sights on atheism as the worst problem in the world.

About all I can think of for an equivalent is like deciding to fight global warming by attacking agrarian societies. :shrug:

[Inland]

74. I wonder who "set his sights on atheism as the worst problem in the world"

Please point that post out to me. I'd like to see it and argue with the person who made it.

[trotsky]

108. Go to your bathroom.

There should be a thing called a mirror - look at it.

[Inland]

112. So you can show me the post. Not.

You've got friends and enemies of your own fevered need to draw lines. Got nothing to do with me, but everything to do with your manichaen world view. So sad. Now go complain about how OTHER people are deluded, preferably somewhere else. Nobody's buying what you are selling here.

[trotsky]

124. Got nothing to do with you?

I dunno, Inland, you've made it your personal crusade to both blame atheism for all the crimes of any "atheistic" regimes, yet turn around and bash atheism for being nothing. I'm going to counter your misinformation and deception whenever you bring it up.

[Inland]

125. Empty flamebait. nt

[trotsky]

127. When you decide which position you're going to take

(whether atheism is responsible for evil, or whether it's responsible for nothing), please let me know.

Until then, I'll take your advice and consider your posts to indeed be empty flamebait.

[Inland]

129. More flamebait. nt

[trotsky]

130. Just let me know when you take a position.

That's all. Thanks, buddy! :hi:

[Inland]

133. Yeah, I'll do that. Wait by the phone. nt

[Inland]

72. Why, that's my point. The chrisitians in the UK didn't use force,

and the atheists in the USSR did, as did the atheists in the entire communist world.

Pretty simple point, really. Too bad you are so into being on "a side" that you can't acknowledge it.

[trotsky]

109. So you DO know you didn't have a point.

Because the governments aren't comparable in the way you wanted them to be.

Try again, Inland! This is fun.

[Inland]

113. That was incomprehensible. nt.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. I think *that's* an unfair comparison

The fair one, I would argue, would be to compare the de facto religious positions of different governments, not their official ones.

Also, one should be comparing crimes committed per capita, or something similar not total crimes, surely? Otherwise, any large group is going to appear to be less moral than any small one.

But even that strikes me as a very, very odd thing to do - it's not clear to me that "governments holding your religious position have/haven't committed atrocities" tells one anything interesting about the effect on morality of your religious position. It certainly doesn't tell one anything about the truth or falsity of it.

[Goblinmonger]

61. That would be my point

The poster above wants to compare apples to oranges to his advantage. If we are comparing unlike things, I want it to my advantage and not his.

I think the death count game is pretty silly, too. Especially when a great many millions of Stalin's deaths come because of resource problems and governmental mismanagement. Surely that is not the fault of atheism.

And if we were to compare the defact religious positions of the governments, I think theist-based governments would win the death-count tally by a whole hell of a lot.

[Inland]

81. Particularly since the communist countries were also "officially"

without death penalties (USSR), with autonomous national governments, with representative institutions, with courts and laws and a whole bunch of "official" things that didn't mean shit as to how the countries actually operated.

[varkam]

52. I don't understand...

you hit the nail right on the head, but then you went back and implied something completely different. You say that atheists can execute people for other reasons than atheism (which I agree with), but then you say that the only out is to say that atheism is not a belief (which implies that atheism was the reason for the genocides)! Or perhaps you're just saying that atheism, by itself, is an ineffective deterrent to blood-thirsty tyrants. I doubt you're going to find much argument here. Atheism is not a sufficient condition for preventing affronts to morality - but then again, neither is religion (as history has shown time and time and time and time again). But, what I thought was interesting (and my motivation for posting the OP) was that there is something else at play - namely, unjustified belief. It is true that atheists can hold unjustified beliefs. But I wonder which is more susceptible to unjustified belief...atheism or religion (whose foundation is entirely based upon such belief). Hmmmm.....

[kwassa]

54. What makes a belief justified or unjustified?

Is there a universal justification, or is justification itself subjective?

Who sets the criteria?

[Evoman]

55. I think what he means by unjustified

Is believing something absolutely with no evidence.

[kwassa]

59. What is evidence?

and who gets to decide that?

[Evoman]

66. Thats a very good question

I won't bother putting a dictionary definition, since you can look that up yourself. To me, evidence is an observation/object/experiment that shows a statement to be true or, at the very least, supports the statement. If "the evidence" can be used to support two completely contradictory statements, then it is not really evidence. If "the evidence" has been shown to be false or suspect, it is not really evidence.

Who decides what is evidence? Well..I do. We all make decisions on what constitutes evidence...some need more evidence, some need little evidence. To me personally, larger claims need more evidence.

For example, if someone tells me that my girlfriend is cheating on me, I would need evidence. A picture of her entering a hotel with another man might convince me. After that, I would either confront her, or find more evidence (such as following her next time she ditches me). If the picture was given to me by a good friend or PI, I would trust it a whole lot better than if a rival (i.e exboyfriend) gave it to me.

For a claim such as "jesus is god, and you must devote yourself to him" I need a little more evidence. Everytime I ask for evidence of Jesus or God, I always get a bible. But the bible is full of contradictions and plain old falsehoods. The bible is suspect. I, therefore, do not use the bible as evidence. Without the bible, or quran or Bghadavita, what evidence is there? In absense of evidence, YOU HAVE TO accept the null hypothesis, at least provisionally. In this case, the null hypothesis is atheism.

[Inland]

91. Atheism isn't a vaccine.

The concept that an atheist is less or more susceptible to unjustified belief is pure speculation, given the huge universe of things that one CAN believe, ideologically.

In the context of the marxist countries discussed, there's more than ample proof that atheism certainly didn't prevent the building of a huge edifice of bullshit that reached into every single aspect of their lives to ill effect. Indeed, being FOR science, being FOR rationality, isn't the same as being rational or scientific.

The marxist nations managed to reach a pinnacle based on expropriation and forced labor and quickly fell behind, providing neither material comfort nor justice, and eventually self destructing, evolving, or becoming hells. At the same moment in history, those crazy religious countries were becoming wealthy, developing things like universal suffrage and free market economies--things that actually work because they ARE based in rationality and science, and yes, a better intuitive sense of what people are actually like, what's fair, what's right, and how societies should be ordered.

As Engels said, the test of the pudding is in the eating. Atheism is clearly not a vaccine, because religion is not the disease. That's all that I'm saying and the historical record shows. Something else has got to go on. I suggest liberal democracy, but that's me.

[varkam]

92. Yes, those religious countries

certainly have been bastions of freedom and wealth for all - hey, just look at the middle east! oh, wait a minute...

And to say, or to imply, that all the great achievements of human history were a result of religious ideology or in virtue of theological mechanisms is simply intellectually dishonest. While it was true that many of these developments were spawned by individuals who were religious, it is also true that pretty much everyone was. It's a statistical probability issue. If 9 out of 10 folks are swinging hammers and writing books also happen to be religious, then eventually you're going to have something great created by someone who also believed in God.

And to say that atheism/atheists just don't have a sense of what people are like, what is fair, what is right and how societies should be ordered...well, why don't you tell us? I'm sure in that good book of yours it's bound to say something about the fair and equal treatment of women, the internal workings of the human psyche, what morality is really all about, and the "place" people should keep in their societies. Why...I'm sure that if religion does the trick, then every society that is overtly religious has done a bang-up job with these issues! Oh wait...but they haven't...maybe the problem is a bit more complex?

True, you were discussing marxism - but I figured since we are playing fast and loose with the definition of it, then I could generalize over to atheism. As you clearly did.

But perhaps, like our last conversation, I should just put my main points in bold (you know, so you don't have to waste time reading my posts). Here you go:

The key is unjustified belief. Atheists can have them. Theists can have them.

To further illustrate, here's a little snippet from my post which you responded to (pay close attention to the first part):

Atheism is not a sufficient condition for preventing affronts to morality - but then again, neither is religion (as history has shown time and time and time and time again).

[Inland]

93. Not all religious countries were oppressive failures.

Can anyone make the same claim about the ones with atheism as the state ideology?

I'm simply saying that your simple speculation that atheism is somehow less conducive to unjustified beliefs is clearly a crock, given the real world experience with the edifice of unjustified belief that led our communist friends to the dustbin of history while the foolish religious societies managed to get some things right in this vale of tears.

To say that "Atheism is not a sufficient condition for preventing affronts to morality" is a different issue altogether, and a compliment masquerading as humility. Atheism doesn't contemplate affronts to morality, because it is, as defined a million times, a not-belief. Morality, and preventing affronts to it, isn't part of a not-belief. Morality, and preventing affronts, has been religion's ambition, and while anyone has to see how it has failed and failed often, failure doesn't change the fact that at least it's in the game. Atheism in and of itself isn't in the game: it's not a sufficient condition for morality at all, not without a belief and a values system added to or accompanying it, and in developing that belief or values system is where people take the chance.

[varkam]

98. Round and round we go...

I only say atheism is less conducive to unjustified belief, relative to theism, because theism is founded upon unjustified belief. Definitionally speaking, it would seem to follow. That is, unless, you can provide actual evidence for theisms claims.

Atheists are still susceptible to unjustified belief, and I never claimed that they werent. And to say that "the foolish religious societies managed to get some things right" is true - at least the second part (I take it you're being sarcastic in the first). If you can point me to the post where I made the claim that either a) religion is the root of all evil in society, or that b) all religious societies muck everything up, I sure would appreciate it. Beyond that, however, I think it is plainly evident the cost that has been paid for membership in religious societies - a cost that continues to be paid to this very day. Tell me again, where are the people currently being slaughtered in the name of atheism?

As for the final issue: you said that atheism is not a vaccine, as religion is not a disease. My saying "atheism is not a sufficient condition for prevent affronts to morality", i take it, is precisely the same thing. Regardless of whether or not you take atheism to be a belief or a non-belief, it is still nontheless a condition of cognition. If you're getting nitpicky on me, I hope you would agree that even one with "non-beliefs" would still take genocide to be a bad thing. And as far as morality goes...if you think that what is moral is what is prescribed in the religious doctrines, then you're simply begging the question - why are these things moral?

[Inland]

107. You say belief in a god is wrong, and all else valueless extrapolation.

That's why it goes round and round. You take getting one thing right and asserts that it shows, or causes, one to be less susceptible to other types of unjustified belief.

The facts show otherwise.

As to "suffient condition", the implication is that atheism is a concept even relevant to morality that is merely "insufficient". It's not relevant, not merely insufficient, because atheism as atheism doesn't attempt a system of morals or values whatsoever.

People with non=beliefs DON'T have an opinion on genocide. That would require a system of morals or values, which means, they HAVE a belief system--that is, they have developed something beyond atheism, that something which has to stand on its own. Our friends in the commie world had Marxism, because their atheism wasn't a vaccine against history's Biggest Pile of Dumb and a good chunk of its evil. I suggest liberal democracy as a better set of values.

As for WHY religions have the moral systems and values systems, fuck, you don't have to beg THAT question. A a religious person would bend your ear off if you asked them as to "why", or what, or how often. There's legions of clergy and theologians that do that for a living. You just don't like the answers, which is your right, but the fact is that they are in the game, working on it, rather than simply identifying with a non-belief, refusing to identify with either the effort in order to criticize the failure and to score points on an internet board with people on the "other team". Not you: I appreciate your posts.

[varkam]

120. I never said...

that belief in a god is wrong - only that it is founded upon unjustified belief. Whether or not you take that to be "right" or "wrong", that is your prerogative.

And I say that atheism isn't a sufficient condition in the same sense that being put in prison for 25 years is not a sufficient condition, or that the enactment of military law is not a sufficient condition, or that believing in the flying spaghetti monster is not a sufficient condition. And yes, atheists can have other beliefs - we all do. It would be a very hard world to live in if theological claims were the only beliefs which we could live by. For example, I can't think of a place in the bible offhand where it says one should look both ways before crossing a busy intersection. Likewise, the bible doesn't really say a whole lot about abortion or homosexual marriage (from what I recall, there's a lot more time spent talking about the poor and helping others) - but yet we've managed to turn those into firestorms of moral opinion.

Further, I'm not debating whether or not liberal democracy is better than marxism or visa versa. My only real point was to say that something else might be at work - other than religion. And I do concede the point that my saying religious people are more susceptible to unjustified belief is pure speculation - though I don't conceded that theism is, in fact, based upon unjustified belief.

It isn't that I don't like the answers for why what is written in the bible is moral...it's that they don't make any sense at all. What is morality? It's...ugh...I really don't want to get into this discussion, we've gone way o/t. Suffice it to say that I am agreeing with your statement that atheism is not a vaccine.

[Odin2005]

58. Marxism is like a religion in many ways.

The late British historian Arnold Toynbee pointed out many similarities between Marxism and fundimentalist religous sects that are hoping to bring on the End of the World, he classifies them as "futurist" ideologies, which are the ideologies most prone to use violence to acheive thier ends.

[Dogmudgeon]

96. Why not strip the issue bare of the nonsense?

The issue of tyranny isn't an issue of religion and/or atheism, it's sui generis. Tyrants have always found religion to be a fertile field, but there have been a few successful atheist tyrannies, too.

I have never been convinced that religion (or lack of it) was a casual factor in human evil. It appears to come along for the ride, a metaphorically opportunistic infection for those who believe in memes. Given even a few hundred years, any philosophical system will accumulate a roster of saints and a gallery of rogues.

I was channel-surfing earlier tonight and came across Pat Robertson in front of a map of the world with the names of Biblical nations pasted on. Pat was wearing a big old shit-eating grin as he prophesied the Battle of Armageddon. It was a grin that has been worn by a hundred tyrants before him, many of whom invoked God and Jesus and Muhammad at frequent intervals, but many of whom proclaimed Atheism and Dialectical Materialism and the Inevitability of History. Four days ago marked the birthday of Robespierre, for instance; five days ago, Marx. But, to paraphrase Voltaire, it proves nothing; Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles and George Clooney also had birthdays this week.

Conflating religion and/or atheism with tyrannical political regimes isn't exactly new -- or productive. Mainly it's a fallacious rhetorical device that lacks for a Latin title. Sam Harris, of course, is a crusader for atheism, and will bend as many arguments as he can get away with, as do most polemicists. Most American and European atheists prefer to lump Communism in with religion, but that doesn't make it so. Ultimately, it's a futile game. Tyranny can exist within any philosophical system. It's its own evil infection, and all of us, believers or not, are its hosts.

--p!
Merry (belated) Clooneymas!

[Inland]

146. That's where I thought Harris could be heading,

until he termed communism "little more than a political religion." It's one thing to make an analogy: there's plenty of talk of "priesthoods" and "the faithful" from football to the washington press corps. But it's pretty clear that Harris was simply equating communism with religion because like religion, communism is wrong and bad. Not AS wrong and bad as religion, for while communism is "little more than a political religion", it's still "more".

That he couldn't simply say, as you do, that wrong is wrong and right is right, and instead found himself saying, what's wrong is religion, says something about the level of polemic.

[Dogmudgeon]

163. Problems with the argument

Many atheists are so eager to bash religion that they veer off of their message, usually pretty quickly. They might as well just start by saying "God blows dead goats" and get it off their chests so they can take it from there.

There is much to criticize in religion. But most of those criticisms can easily apply to social organizations other than religion. The human impulse to dominate others applies to any kind of "tribal" group -- religion and politics being two of the largest, most powerful kinds of group. But this is quickly inverted in the name of criticizing religion. The argument becomes "all human evil derives from religion". It falls on receptive ears because it's an ironic and hip position, and it allows officially-atheist Communism to be turned into a religion. But it's also demonstrably incorrect. Social domination, even to the point of killing off half the members of one's tribe, is seen among many, if not most, animals with spinal cords (the chordates).

Harris' anti-religious writing contains many of these kinds of argument-crippling reversals. It's not enough for Harris to claim that religion inherits the evils of regressive dominance drives, making it kin to political tyranny; he steps right into the trap I described in the previous paragraph. Today's "naturalistic humanists" (which includes atheists) talk a great deal about evolutionary psychology and "hardwiring" and "Alpha Males", but they have an inexplicable aversion to similar discussions of dominance and submission among animals, including human beings. It is one of the most powerful factors in the equation, and should not be avoided.

--p!

[papau]

165. Great thread. Well put,, factual, and clear.

:toast:

:-)

[trotsky]

166. Apparently you're not reading Harris very closely.

Far more is said than simply "communism is like religion because it's wrong and bad." But, as evidenced from your past history, you'll reach for whatever's handy to do your bashing.

By the way, do you have a yes or no answer to my question yet?

[ozone_man]

169. He's right of course.

That it's unjustified beliefs that leads to these attrocities. Like that Voltaire quote, "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." But also from Hitler, "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility". I think it takes a sociopathic leader, but also a populace willing to believe in these lies. Sounds sort of like our present administration, doesn't it?

In the case of Hitler, there was a thousand years of antisemitism propagated by the Catholic church, which turned it into a racial hatred during the Spanish Inquisition. This was further intensified by Martin Luther (The Jews and Their Lies, 1543), setting the stage for the Holocaust 400 years later. It wasn't one man, one sociopath who was responsible, but a history of bigotry with it's foundation built on religious antisemitism.

Atheism is relevant only in that it involves the use of reason to arrive at opinions regarding the existence of deities, instead of blindly following dogmas. It doesn't matter much whether the dogmas are religious, political or racial, we have wars based on all the combinations thereof. This is not to say that there can't be sociopaths who can also be atheists, but would imply that the tendency should be less. If one uses reason their life, they will be less likely to believe absurdities.

Regardng tolerance, it can be a good thing or a bad thing. As Tom Paine said, "toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it." The trick is to understand when it is time to stop tolerating the abuse. Religion, over the ages, has been intolerant and abusive, responsible for wars and used as a tool to wage wars, even if it wasn't the primary motive. As Sam Harris points out, the world may not be able to wait another 500 years for certain religions to moderate, considering that we are in the nuclear age now. We have to start basing our spiritual needs on less preposterous basis. The world is divided by race, religion and political ideology, so if we want to work toward world peace, some of these barriers need to be dropped. Religion is a big divider as each believes that their's is the right god or the right way to worship god, and in extreme cases, people will kill, because their Bible or Koran tells them it is the right thing to do. So, this is what he means by being the tolerant liberal about such things as suicide bombings may not be appropriate, that by granting plausibility to preposterous religious beliefs we are not working toward a just and peaceful world. At some point, we have to mature as a world and stop believing in the absurdities af ancient despotisms.

[shrike]

172. Sinclair Lewis wrote a book, "It Can't Happen Here"

In its day, it was a response to the rise of fascism in Europe and in certain circles in the United States. Its parallels to the rise of Bush are frightening.
He scores a lot of points against religion (apparently the God-and-apple-pie crowd hasn't changed much.) However, the "good guys" include a minister, a Catholic priest, a guy (the hero) without much religious conviction in ANY direction (although he didn't classify himself as a non-believer) and an agnostic who does not call himself an atheist only because (in his opinion) atheists in his world are no different than the tract-wavers who stand on street corners and try to convert everybody to their point of view. (Again, I'm expressing the character's views.) The agnostic ends up in a concentration camp and basically sacrificing himself for his country and ideals, btw.

Lewis obviously had no use for religion, but one of his characters made a very interesting point which I really see as the heart of the book: the struggle is not between one ideology and another, but between fanaticism and tolerance. Between tolerance and INtolerance. Between rigid ideology and an open mind.

Lewis depicts the cancer of rigid ideology in its different forms. For example, the United States of America changes its name to the Corporate States of America (how prescient is that), and the two main political parties become one -- the Corporate Party.

If you haven't read this book I strongly recommend that you do. I described it once to a group of people who think I'm a radical and a bit of a crank (It's a sign of the times that I, of all people, are a radical) and the room got very quiet.