I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.
Eugenics?
Yup, which Is why I have hope science will eventually work out everything...it's a matter of figuring out how to perceive what you're looking for...
Ok, ideally you should not be looking for anything. When you are engaged in a scientific investigation, when you look too hard you can find things that are not really there. You start to adjust data to fit expectations, a dangerous thing indeed.
It is common for people to act as if they know how the world works and expect that, someday, scientists will discover that all that they knew to be true is indeed so. Most of the time, scientists find out that things work in a way quite different from what most thought possible.
develop a tool to see beyond the veil, find those ghosts...
If they exist, of course. Otherwise it would be impossible to develop it :)
what amazes me is the ostracism that can occur in the scientific world if you don't tow the company line, if you believe in something that isn't provable RIGHT NOW! If you are on the fringe...
This is a bit of a stereotype concerning science, which usually originates from a lack of experience with the scientific activity. As Keith has pointed out a few times, scientists are expected to try and tear apart new ideas. If these cannot stand the onslaught it means that they are either false, badly understood by its very proponents (who are, thus, unable to defend it properly), or lacking in substance. Anyone can try and accumulate further evidence to support it, but it will always be met with resistance. This is, in fact, one of the key points that makes science successful.
since a lot of science is based upon unproven theory...(oh great I just ruined ANY chance at entering the science community)
As was pointed out by many in many other occasions, this kind of statement misrepresents science by confusing the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context with the mundane meaning of "theory" (as in "it is just a theory..."). It also misplaces the role of "proof" in the scientific endeavour.
Just cuz we haven't explained it YET doesn't mean people who believe in it are necessarily crazy...they might be, but maybe that's what gives them the insight?=D
Conversely, just because people are considered crazy because of something they say does not mean they are right.
I am not sure where I read it but I think it is an interesting quote:
"In order to be compared to Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted for your ideas. You must also be right."
I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.
What about Stalin's slaughter of Jews in the enlightened environs of an atheist Soviet Union?
I've read atheist writings that have stated that the best thing to do with Islamic Middle Eastern countries like Iran would be a preemptive nuclear, that the civilian casualties would be a necessary evil, for the sake of securing a safer world. This is based on the "fact" that there is just no reasoning with "those people."
I don't think religion has a monopoly on taking complicated situations and reducing them to black and white oversimplification for the sake of being right.
Beyond that, there's that weak magnetic field that surrounds you...and when other things fields interact with yours, you can definitely feel it...I'm pretty sure not all those times you had that sense, it was the wind current...(we're 75% water, water create fields as it moves, and our body is constantly moving a water based substance (with iron in it) around our body, in circles...)
Ok, we must be careful here. Magnetic fields generated by most living things, and water, are quite small. The energy associated with a magnetic field is 10^-6 smaller than that associated with the corresponding electric field. Besides, fluctuations in the magentic fields of living organisms due to the presence of equally weak magnetic fields are even weaker, being practically unnoticeable by any means. I would not say you can "definitely feel it" In fact, biochemical processes involving water can be completely understood with no recourse to magnetic field fluctuations.
The whole idea of magnetic fields and their importance to life has been exaggerated many times, and has been cleverly exploited by many conmen selling special "magnetized water" to people. It is important, particularly for some species, like birds, but one should not extrapolate its effect to other species carelessly.
Ok I was at a debate at the university this week about religion, anyway I admitted that yes I am an atheist and was verbally attacked by a woman on the opposite side of the floor, saying things like I would burn in hell. My only response was a quote by Stephen Roberts to close the debate I said the following.
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the existence of all other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Apparently this was received as offensive and I still don't see how.
As to the original question...My view is that you did nothing wrong. You apparently responded to a "burn in hell" attack with an interesting point concerning belief and disbelief. Nothing aggressive in your quote as I see it.
|
I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.
Stalin and Hitler definitely did not use religious arguments to justify their crimes. The former one was indeed a definite atheist (as any Communist had to be).
In fact, many modern ethnic cleansings did not use any kind of religious motivation.
And we can find several examples of people being persecuted by atheists because they did follow a religion (of course, the modern Communist states such as China, the USSR and North Korea are prime examples).
I am always worried about people thinking they understand more than others about the truth of the world. That includes religious fanatics, of course, but that does include fanatic followers of atheism too.
After all, atheism is just a belief like any other. And for some, they cling to it quite religiously ;-)
|
|
Ok I was at a debate at the university this week about religion, anyway I admitted that yes I am an atheist and was verbally attacked by a woman on the opposite side of the floor, saying things like I would burn in hell. My only response was a quote by Stephen Roberts to close the debate I said the following.
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the existence of all other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Apparently this was received as offensive and I still don't see how.
Well, by saying that, you did negate her beliefs while at the same time upholding yours. I can very easily see how she can find this offensive.
Even moreso as, like any true religious fanatic out there, comparing her God to other people's false idols is a terrible blasphemy.
That quote in fact contains two severe attacks against people following a religion, as well as a hidden praise of atheism. It is not a balanced argument at all (and quite devious when you analyse the structure of it).
After all, atheism is just a belief like any other. And for some, they cling to it quite religiously ;-)
I was agreeing with you until you dropped this one. Saying that you do not believe in something is not a belief in the sense i think you mean. Otherwise, I would have to say all mankind believes in infinite things.
For instance, we would have to say that most grown-ups only **believe** that Santa does not exist. As another example, should one say that he does not believe invisible clones of Elminster fly amongst us throwing bolts of invisible lightning on children , we would have to respond that this disbelief is, itself, a "belief like any other".
*sigh*
Atheism is, in fact, the absence of belief in a deity or deities. To assert that atheism is "just another belief" is patently wrong by the very definition of the word atheism. There are four definitions for "belief" in the dictionary--none of them have any application to atheism.
For example, I am an atheist. As an atheist I lack a belief system when it comes to the notion of higher powers. I do not "believe" that there is no god, I simply lack a system by which that belief is possible.
This assertion that atheism is "just another belief" or as religious folks I know are want to tell me "just another religion" is hogwash. Atheism is antithetical to religion and belief and cannot, by definition, be a belief.
My two cents.
|
Due to the problem of induction (Francis Bacon, David Hume, Karl Popper and doubtless others) we cannot be certain that what we think we know is true, because knowledge is contingent on future experience/knowledge which might disprove what we have experienced to date. As such, anything we believe is effectively a form of "faith", be it religious or even non-religious belief. According to Popper, anything which cannot be disproved (like the existance of a higher being, though he was aiming more at revolutionary communism) is in the realm of metaphysics and effectively beyond rational debate (the latter point is arguable, and philosophers have therefore argued about it). So anything we believe is a form of faith.
I say that as a practicing atheist. I am an atheist because I think that atheism explains the world better (i.e. more to my satisfaction as an individual) and that is a psychological point, not philosophical. But I don't know how the world genuinely works better (or worse) than those believing in a higher being, I simply chose to believe as I do.
Due to the problem of induction (Francis Bacon, David Hume, Karl Popper and doubtless others) we cannot be certain that what we think we know is true, because knowledge is contingent on future experience/knowledge which might disprove what we have experienced to date. As such, anything we believe is effectively a form of "faith", be it religious or even non-religious belief. According to Popper, anything which cannot be disproved (like the existance of a higher being, though he was aiming more at revolutionary communism) is in the realm of metaphysics and effectively beyond rational debate (the latter point is arguable, and philosophers have therefore argued about it). So anything we believe is a form of faith.
I say that as a practicing atheist. I am an atheist because I think that atheism explains the world better (i.e. more to my satisfaction as an individual) and that is a psychological point, not philosophical. But I don't know how the world genuinely works better (or worse) than those believing in a higher being, I simply chose to believe as I do.
Aubrey, I agree with you that debating whether or not god exists belongs to the realm of metaphysics. Due to its complete absence from scientific observations, god cannot be empirically refuted (only deemed improbable). However stating that as a belief seems to me a bit far-fetched. Let us, for instance, imagine a given scientific theory, which is based on a number of hypotheses, say, three, and is expected to describe a certain part of nature. Should an extra hypothesis , which happens to change no predictions the theory can make, and has, in fact, no effect at all in the final result of its predictions, exist, it would not be added to the theory, of course. One could say that this choice is merely a belief. But in my opinion it stretches a lot the usual meaning of the word. As I previously mentioned, I think using the word "belief" this way would render the term itself pointless, since it would imply that denying any of all possible unfalsifiable propositions, ranging from Santa Claus to Martians, would constitute a belief. This is not what we understand when we use the word "belief", much less "faith".
Atheism is, in fact, the absence of belief in a deity or deities. To assert that atheism is "just another belief" is patently wrong by the very definition of the word atheism. There are four definitions for "belief" in the dictionary--none of them have any application to atheism.
Really, what dictionary is that? Is a dictionary definition:
Main Entry: belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
#3 for this dictionary definition certain fits for atheism. #2 could also reasonably fit. #1 is a bit questionable perhaps, and I would say it could go either way but would defer to people claiming it wouldn't apply.
=============
As for people saying belief in religion is not a mental illness, remember that mental illnesses are often social constructs. For example, homosexuality was a mental illness until it was removed from the list. Religion belief might not be a mental illness until it is defined as such, at which point it will be.
That would be like the Pope telling all the Cardinals, "Look, every proclomation I think of making, you guys need to demand that I show you how it fits Scripture, and you need to try and come up with your own scriptural constructs that prove I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Only if my idea withstands all of that will I make the proclomation; otherwise I'll accept one of yours instead... unless I can tear that one down!"
I actually I would be surprised if most proclamations from the Pope don't go through an evaluation at least on par with a Supreme Court decision. With an examination of past precedents, examination of the source documents and so forth.
|
|
That would be like the Pope telling all the Cardinals, "Look, every proclomation I think of making, you guys need to demand that I show you how it fits Scripture, and you need to try and come up with your own scriptural constructs that prove I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Only if my idea withstands all of that will I make the proclomation; otherwise I'll accept one of yours instead... unless I can tear that one down!"I actually would be surprised if most proclamations from the Pope don't go through an evaluation at least on par with a Supreme Court decision. With an examination of past precedents, examination of the source documents and so forth.
They used to - then like all centralist regimes the leader decided he was unaccountable to those who were there to oppose him through a process of consensus and review.
The irony of not learning the right message from history.
That would be like the Pope telling all the Cardinals, "Look, every proclomation I think of making, you guys need to demand that I show you how it fits Scripture, and you need to try and come up with your own scriptural constructs that prove I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Only if my idea withstands all of that will I make the proclomation; otherwise I'll accept one of yours instead... unless I can tear that one down!"I actually would be surprised if most proclamations from the Pope don't go through an evaluation at least on par with a Supreme Court decision. With an examination of past precedents, examination of the source documents and so forth.They used to - then like all centralist regimes the leader decided he was unaccountable to those who were there to oppose him through a process of consensus and review.
The irony of not learning the right message from history.
I would be interested in learning more about this shift. Could you give me some ideas about where I look up information about it?
|
|
Aubrey, I agree with you that debating whether or not god exists belongs to the realm of metaphysics. Due to its complete absence from scientific observations, god cannot be empirically refuted (only deemed improbable). However stating that as a belief seems to me a bit far-fetched. Let us, for instance, imagine a given scientific theory, which is based on a number of hypotheses, say, three, and is expected to describe a certain part of nature. Should an extra hypothesis , which happens to change no predictions the theory can make, and has, in fact, no effect at all in the final result of its predictions, exist, it would not be added to the theory, of course. One could say that this choice is merely a belief. But in my opinion it stretches a lot the usual meaning of the word. As I previously mentioned, I think using the word "belief" this way would render the term itself pointless, since it would imply that...Due to the problem of induction (Francis Bacon, David Hume, Karl Popper and doubtless others) we cannot be certain that what we think we know is true, because knowledge is contingent on future experience/knowledge which might disprove what we have experienced to date. As such, anything we believe is effectively a form of "faith", be it religious or even non-religious belief. According to Popper, anything which cannot be disproved (like the existance of a higher being, though he was aiming more at revolutionary communism) is in the realm of metaphysics and effectively beyond rational debate (the latter point is arguable, and philosophers have therefore argued about it). So anything we believe is a form of faith.
I say that as a practicing atheist. I am an atheist because I think that atheism explains the world better (i.e. more to my satisfaction as an individual) and that is a psychological point, not philosophical. But I don't know how the world genuinely works better (or worse) than those believing in a higher being, I simply chose to believe as I do.
We are debating what constitutes "belief" or "faith". Logically, I have no real reason to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow. It has happened in the past (induction) but plenty of things could happen that might make those observations invalid. They might be unlikely, they might be currently unknown, but they might exist (like Hume and his assertion that all swans are white being "true" unil refuted, and then black swans were discovered in New Zealand). You cannot refute that. But I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Is that belief or faith? I don't really distinguish between the two, and I'm not convinced that there is really that much distinction between the two. I don't believe in God. I have faith that the scientific description of the world, based on impersonal forces, albeit incomplete and currently flawed, is the correct one. Others believe otherwise, based on their own experiences. My point is mainly that belief, faith or whatever is a psychological issue rather than one based on proof.
Well, how do you know that these miricles occured at all? You have nothing more than a document that claims it occured. That is not evidence in and of itself, especially as that document is not internally consistant, has been translated many times, with only a moderate degree of accuracy and is not contempery with the events it discribes.You misunderstand. I'm talking about miracles happening in modern times.
As for the idea of psychosomatic responses. Well, that could explain some of the stuff I'm talking about, but I really doubt that a person could recover from cancer, or get over some chronic condition just from his own thoughts. And then there's people who have died, like brain dead, for hours and still come back. This is one of the things I was talking about, a scientific person might look at this and try to find some scientific reason for it. But a religious person like myself might look at that explanation and say it's complete BS. Two completely different viewpoints. It's very hard to reconcile these two points of view. We can argue about details all we want it won't change the fact that we're looking at the problem two completely different ways. Scientist have a theory that explains why they believe it happens based on what they've observed. But they're perception is colored by they're own beliefs. They don't want to believe that miracles exist, so they may deceive themselves. In this case the devil probably helps too. On the other hand, it could be that I and other Christians are the ones who are deceiving themselves. Ultimately there's one truth, at least one of us is wrong. But if religion can be a delusion so can science.
No, science cannot be a delusion. It does not involve people believeing things which most people cannot see. Even quantum physics, any one can read the instriments and get the same responce, and do so time after time.
The only consistant and repeatable response when talking to god, or praying, or what ever, is nothing happening at all.
If modern mirricles are occuring, please, provide me evidence. Every single example I have ever seen, when examined by any one with a sceptical mind, has been shown to be either the result of the treatment they were already undertaking, or just the pychosomatic effect, in a highly suggestable enviroment.
This is one of the things I was talking about, a scientific person might look at this and try to find some scientific reason for it. But a religious person like myself might look at that explanation and say it's complete BS. Two completely different viewpoints.The only problem I see with that logic is that one person bases their viewpoint based on careful study of the issue at hand, whereas the other simply calls "B.S.," sight unseen, without troubling to understand the first person's explanations.
Those who have never studied Scripture have absolutely no business bashing Christianity.
Those who have never studied science have absolutely no business bashing scientific theories (and no, that watered-down crap taught to us in high school by well-meaning education majors is NOT science, in most cases).
About the only science i got anything really important out of at school was the basics of chemisty , but until sixth form and university i didn't know a damned thing about how biology really works.
Whoa there! I didn't make any such accusations. I'm not sure where that's coming from. I do believe that most religions (and religious adherents) are at least somewhat irrational, but who isn't? It's all a matter of degree.
...
Sorry Bugley. I shouldn't have quoted you and written like you had said some of the more inflammatory things that I was reading uppost. Mea Culpa. You have at least been willing to discuss the possibility of the existance of a creative force.
To the others who don't believe in anything (As Mr. Frost said, atheism is the absence of belief), I can understand why you are scornful of believers, but try not to describe people as delusional, diseased or foolish. It just gets the hackles up.
To the believers, it doesn't matter what you believe, forcing your beliefs on someone in a misguided attempt to 'save' them is contrary to free will, and therefore antithetical to any diety I'd care to worship. Telling someone they'll go to Hell for not believing as you do condemns not just them, but everyone in the world who does not follow your dogma. You can see where the thought that most of humanity is consigned to a lake of fire for eternity is a little elitist. If such is the case, I'll take my chances among the pitchforks. Everyone I love will be there anyway.
I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.Eugenics?
Eugenics is an ideology. It has more in common with a religion than it does with atheism.
At no point does saying, 'on the balance of available evidence, i conclude there is almost certainly no god,' in anyway endorse the idea that we should forcably prevent some elements of the community from breeding.
In fact, a person with a good understanding of genetics and evolutionary biology looks at eugenistists, and points and laughs, because their ideas are rediclous on a scientific level.
Atheism says nothing about anything, other than that you individually do not believe in god.
Eugenics is an ideology. It has more in common with a religion than it does with atheism.I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.Eugenics?
It is based on the scientific principle that most (all?) atheists hold as fundamental to their concept of how life works (evolution).
At no point does saying, 'on the balance of available evidence, i conclude there is almost certainly no god,' in anyway endorse the idea that we should forcably prevent some elements of the community from breeding.
Irrelevant. You said you couldn't think of a situation where atheism has allowed people to do horrible things and "feel" like they have done good things. I suggest that some atheists based on their idea of evolution could have done eugenics work (and may continue but now in the form of 'designer babies') and feel that they are ultimately benefiting the human race. It is not required that this be common among the said group, just as violence in the name of religion is not common among people that are religious.
In fact, a person with a good understanding of genetics and evolutionary biology looks at eugenistists, and points and laughs, because their ideas are rediclous on a scientific level.
Again, irrelevant. Nobody says that an atheist can not be wrong in other areas just because they may be right in the idea of whether there exists a supernatural presense or not. Or is the fact that someone is atheist automatically proof that they can not be in error? Likewise, just because someone claims that a religion supports a violent action, that doesn't mean that it actually does.
|
|
Actually, eugenics doesn't have much to do with evolution as an ideaology anyway, and more to do with a (misunderstood) notion of how genetics works. Evolution and genetics are not actually one and the same thing, especially as ideas of evolution have existed for centuries but Mendel's work was on heredity of pea plants and wasn't anything to do with evolution - it is simply that Mendelian genetics provided the necessary hereditary mechanism to answer certain thorny (at the time) criticisms of natural selection (such as Fleeming Jenkin). In any case, eugenics was much less about mankind "evolving" and more about exterminating individual genes held to be undesirable to futher certain social goals - i.e. to stop mankind "devolving" due to overbreeding by the feckless, "clearly" genetically inferior social groups.
|
|
Eugenics is an ideology. It has more in common with a religion than it does with atheism.I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.Eugenics?It is based on the scientific principle that most (all?) atheists hold as fundamental to their concept of how life works (evolution).
At no point does saying, 'on the balance of available evidence, i conclude there is almost certainly no god,' in anyway endorse the idea that we should forcably prevent some elements of the community from breeding.Irrelevant. You said you couldn't think of a situation where atheism has allowed people to do horrible things and "feel" like they have done good things. I suggest that some atheists based on their idea of evolution could have done eugenics work (and may continue but now in the form of 'designer babies') and feel that they are ultimately benefiting the human race. It is not required that this be common among the said group, just as violence in the name of religion is not common among people that are religious.
In fact, a person with a good understanding of genetics and evolutionary biology looks at eugenistists, and points and laughs, because their ideas are rediclous on a scientific level.Again, irrelevant. Nobody says that an atheist can not be wrong in other areas just because they may be right in the idea of whether there exists a supernatural presense or not. Or is the fact that someone is atheist automatically proof that they can not be in error? Likewise, just because someone claims that a religion supports a violent action, that doesn't mean that it actually does.
I don't think anyone has said that atheists are morally superior as such, or immune to error. That also cuts across into non-atheists too. In fact, scientifically speaking, all scientific "knowledge" is contingent on the next discovery that might invalidate it, or at least lead it to be questioned and refined, so to some extent it is all wrong. And yes, I would agree that because someone sees support in "scripture" or whatever for a violent that that invalidates the views of all religious people (as such - I still think they are wrong, but can't definitively prove it). Violence can be easily perpetrated by an atheists. Religion has been a positive force in the history of science anyway (people get hung up on Galileo, but he went out of his way to annoy the Pope, and Copernicus was a Catholic priest, for example - in fact, most of the knowledge carried forward from the ancient world was done by Islamic scholars and Christian monasteries in the Middle Ages) as well as a negative. The point is that these things are much more nuanced - as usual.
Of course, it doesn't help that the main global security threat at the moment brands itself using religion, but in reality the main issues fostering al-Qaeda are economic, political and psychological. People will always find an excuse to kill each other. Unfortunately, this arguably also takes away any special moral claims that religion purports to offer. If we take the view that religion can lead people into appalling error, and basically can be totally misinterpreted in the same way that scientific understanding can be, then we are simply left with the knowledge that people are crap (which we probably all knew anyway). If there is no way to clearly tell what is the "correct" way to interpret a religious text (since everyone thinks they are correct, even the murderers) then what are we getting out of religion? Doesn't that make it just another debased human construct (even if we accept that there might be divine revelation, we are all to stupid to work out what it might mean) used by people to justify actions they were going to take anyway? So what is the point of religion, other than having an imaginary (or not, depending on your point of view and whether you are Dawkins or not) friend to make you feel better?
|
|
I always find these discussions interesting.
People with scientific training tend to question the information presented to them. It's part of the training and comes from what Kirth and Aubrey are talking about. The scientific community is ruthless in its pursuit of making science accurate and unbiased. It also comes from the fact that many beliefs in science have eventually been usurped or fallen apart in face of new information and technologies. This willingness to question what is being shown, to seek the veracity of all information tends to lead scientific thinkers into conflict with religious beliefs.
By their very nature, religions expect a certain amount of faith. That is to believe in something without necessarily having tangible proof immediately available. That's why its called faith.
So on one side we have people trained to question everything, always. On the other we have people trained to believe no matter what. This is an argument that can't really be won.
As long as you as an individual aren't infringing on the happiness of others as a consequence of your own beliefs, let it lie I say.
Eugenics is an ideology. It is based on the scientific principle that most (all?) atheists hold as fundamental to their concept of how life works (evolution).
Sigh. The same tired anti-evolution arguments. Ben Stein should have found some that haven't been put to bed already.
The difference is, Pres Man, that evolution is descriptive: "how do things seem to work in nature?" An ideology is proscriptive: "you should do this."
Different parts of the Bible purport to be both: "This is how everything works, AND what you should do." That doesn't mean that everything else is that way, or should be. I can explain how gravity works in terms of the mathematics, without thereby encouraging people to jump off bridges. Scientists can explain how evolution works in terms of the biology, without encouraging genocide.
Or, if you prefer, the Bible can explain how things were in Sodom, without encouraging people to do the same.
Sigh. ...
Again, I was just pointing out a potential area that people who are atheist could do something that is "bad"/"wrong"/"badong" and justify it as good. Something Zombieneighbours could not image.
I am not arguing that acceptance of evolution requires one to accept a eugenics philosphy. But it is pretty obvious without evolution, eugenics thought would not have been formalized. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.
As long as you as an individual aren't infringing on the happiness of others as a consequence of your own beliefs, let it lie I say.
Indeed. Sometimes when I see these discussions I think of the Mormon kid on South Park and what he said at the end.
Disclaimer: this is not directed at anyone on this thread, just a statement I thought was humorous.[quote=]"All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls."
-Gary (from "All About the Mormons?")
lol
|
My source is Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History 4th Edition.Well, my source is 3.5 Edition, which is better -- it still has gnomes, and Hitler is a devil in it, not a demon!
(Hey, if we've stooped to talking Nazis, then edition wars must be fair game...)
Is it sad that I saw this joke coming when I posted?
|
|
I am not arguing that acceptance of evolution requires one to accept a eugenics philosphy. But it is pretty obvious without evolution, eugenics thought would not have been formalized. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.
Eugenics is demonstrably bad science - you can't stop people you disapprove of breeding and create a wonderful society, as genetic traits and environment interact in various ways (you can eliminate the gene for type 2 diabates, or you can just not eat so much), behaviour and genetics are very hard to tie together despite quite strong evidence that they are connected, many genetic traits lurk recessively in a person's genetic make-up (most of us carry several genes that would be fatal if we had the double recessive version), and genes interact with one another. Eugenics was a scientific fig leaf for racial, religious and social prejudice - people wanted to believe eugenics because it fitted with their existing views, and you don't need to invoke Darwin to understand Hitler's antisemitism given that it had existed for centuries. If one equates eugenics with genocide (which arguably it is, and has certainly turned into) then there has been ethnic cleansing and genocide in the last few decades (and centuries) that had nothing to do with science. Even if the science underlying eugenics was correct, the practice of it would still be wrong. The issues are moral and ethical, not scientific. And this is straw man stuff.
|
|
One wonders how Dave's textbook, with which I am not familiar, explains all of this.
Okay, so lets get this straight, my source is Dr. Jackson Speilvogel a Fulbright scholar, a highly respected and decorated professor and researcher, and the author of one of the most widly used textbooks on Nazi Germany. Your source is a pro-atheism website designed to link Hitler with all of Christianity. I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions. By the way, I did explain how Dr. Speilvogel explans all of that. It simply seems that you are more interested in argumen than understanding. I'm sorry Jeremy, but this is exactly the reason I must bow out. I don't want to get caught up in a never ending cycle of argument with a fanatic who has no desire to gain understanding.
Is it sad that I saw this joke coming when I posted?My source is Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History 4th Edition.Well, my source is 3.5 Edition, which is better -- it still has gnomes, and Hitler is a devil in it, not a demon!
(Hey, if we've stooped to talking Nazis, then edition wars must be fair game...)
No no, that's called conditioning... ;-)
Time to quote The Hitch-hikers Guide the Galaxy as it will possibly offend some people maybe-ish.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. "The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' "'But,' says Man, 'The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. "'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. "Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best- selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God. "
I don't think anyone has said that atheists are morally superior as such, or immune to error. That also cuts across into non-atheists too. In fact, scientifically speaking, all scientific "knowledge" is contingent on the next discovery that might invalidate it, or at least lead it to be questioned and refined, so to some extent it is all wrong. And yes, I would agree that because someone sees support in "scripture" or whatever for a violent that that invalidates the views of all religious people (as such - I still think they are wrong, but can't definitively prove it). Violence can be easily perpetrated by an atheists. Religion has been a positive force in the history of science anyway (people get hung up on Galileo, but he went out of his way to annoy the Pope, and Copernicus was a Catholic priest, for example - in fact, most of the knowledge carried forward from the ancient world was done by Islamic scholars and Christian monasteries in the Middle Ages) as well as a negative. The point is that these things are much more nuanced - as usual.
Of course, it doesn't help that the main global security threat at the moment brands itself using religion, but in reality the main issues fostering al-Qaeda are economic, political and psychological. People will always find an excuse to kill each other. Unfortunately, this arguably also takes away any special moral claims that religion purports to offer. If we take the view that religion can lead people into appalling error, and basically can be totally misinterpreted in the same way that scientific understanding can be, then we are simply left with the knowledge that people are crap (which we probably all knew anyway). If there is no way to clearly tell what is the "correct" way to interpret a religious text (since everyone thinks they are correct, even the murderers) then what are we getting out of religion? Doesn't that make it just another debased human construct (even if we accept that there might be divine revelation, we are all to stupid to work out what it might mean) used by people to justify actions they were going to take anyway? So what is the point of religion, other than having an imaginary (or not, depending on your point of view and whether you are Dawkins or not) friend to make you feel better?
Thank you, Aubrey, for explaining more clearly what I was trying to say earlier.
Also, people have trotted out Hitler, Staling, the UNA-bomber etc. in response to some of what I wrote earlier (also in response to others I take it). All of which are the extreme examples of people doing Big Bad Things (tm) for one reason or another.What I am more concerned with, though, is the everyday horrific events some religions legitimize. Women getting molested, beaten, raped, mutilated and killed, homosexual people getting the same treatment, all legitimized by some religions. Are the reason for people doing this to others mostly human? Yes, of course they are, whether based on fear, lack of knowledge, misguided pride or just sheer stupidity. But when your religious dogma says it's okay, then a lot of people are given to act upon it rather than coming to the conclusion that it's wrong. Some of these horrific things are even proscribed by the religious dogma and wouldn't take place at all if religion didn't exist.
Like I said earlier, I wish we could pull away the legitimizing cloak of religion and expose these acts for what they really are, whether misogonystic rituals, homophobia or something else. Then we can deal with them on their own merits and people can no longer hide behind all the "but that's what my religion says" BS.
Okay, so lets get this straight, my source is Dr. Jackson Speilvogel a Fulbright scholar, a highly respected and decorated professor and researcher, and the author of one of the most widly used textbooks on Nazi Germany.
One wonders how Dave's textbook, with which I am not familiar, explains all of this.
I knew this already. I learned it by reading your post. You told me this:
Hitler and the majority of the leading Nazis were decidedly anti-religious. This is established by their private writings and many speeches that they gave. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that Nazi ideology and Christianity were incompatable. However, he also knew that the majority of Germans were religious people and so he used religious iconography to draw the German people in.
I was certainly under no delusion that you yourself had claimed to write the book. There is no evidence for any such thing. You cited the author when you mentioned it the first time, which would be a very odd habit if you were trying to claim it as your own work.
Let's look at the specific claims here:
1) Hitler and the majority of the leading Nazis were anti-religious
2) We know because they said as much in their speeches and writing.
Well ok. What is a rational person to do but inquire into those writings and speeches? So I went and got a collection of quotes on the subject from the Number One Nazi himself (with a side-trip through the official party platform). If you want to hold to the good doctor's thesis, you certainly need to explain these things or provide his explanation. I'm not saying he's a dirty, dirty liar who should be spanked and sent to bed without supper. I am asking an ordinary question that should occur to any reasonable and informed person. If you were well-disposed to having an honest conversation and advancing our mutual understanding, I think you'd be falling over yourself to participate.
Instead you rant at me and continue to misunderstand what I am saying. I am not communicating an especially esoteric manner, so I really don't know why this is.
By the way, I did explain how Dr. Speilvogel explans all of that. It simply seems that you are more interested in argumen than understanding. I'm sorry Jeremy, but this is exactly the reason I must bow out. I don't want to get caught up in a never ending cycle of argument with a fanatic who has no desire to gain understanding.
No, you presented his thesis without the explanation I requested and on having that request, simply repeated what you had already said. But when presented with apparent contradictory evidence and a request for explanation, is it not the scholar's unfailing responsibility to consider it and respond to it?
...or is a fanatic anybody who does not immediately abase himself before you and your every proclamation? Because I have generally operated under precisely the opposite definition.
We are debating what constitutes "belief" or "faith". Logically, I have no real reason to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow. It has happened in the past (induction) but plenty of things could happen that might make those observations invalid. They might be unlikely, they might be currently unknown, but they might exist (like Hume and his assertion that all swans are white being "true" unil refuted, and then black swans were discovered in New Zealand). You cannot refute that. But I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Is that belief or faith? I don't really distinguish between the two, and I'm not convinced that there is really that much distinction between the two. I don't believe in God. I have faith that the scientific description of the world, based on impersonal forces, albeit incomplete and currently flawed, is the correct one. Others believe otherwise, based on their own experiences. My point is mainly that belief, faith or whatever is a psychological issue rather than one based on proof.
I am well aware of Hume's arguments against induction and of Popper's attempt to solve it by means of the hypotehtico-deductive method and the concept of falsifiable propositions. It appears to me that you are saying that deciding for the scientific method will always involve inductive reasoning (it has worked before, and hence, it wiil work afterwards). However, one could be primarily convinced by other arguments (e.g. philosophical soundness) and, thus, need no belief or faith in the sense you use it.
Any philosophical savvy scientist knows that scientific knowledge isn't truth in the philosophical sense, but true, nonetheless. If you get too far on the many philosophical problems regarding knowledge, then our very certainty of existing is questioned, and the epistemological problems concerning the scientific method become the least of our concerns. Let us, as an example, imagine that you go to the bank today and tries to withdraw money. You are told then and there that "You merely believe that you had money with us" and that "Your inductive reasoning has led you to believe this", I doubt you would congratulate the man for his "philosophical soundness". More likely punch him in the face.
On the other hand, the scientific method as used by the scientific community is not a deduction, not a logical consequence of certain axioms. It is an adapting set of rules which actually varies depending on the area of science and time. You could say then that deciding by it must involve at least a small psychological element, to which I would have to agree. Using the word "belief" might not be that bad in this case (although, as I stated in other posts, this forces you to establish that a person 'believes' in the denial of everything she denies existing), but I think the word "faith" is really inapropriate since it carries more meaning than the word belief. When we say someone has faith in something, it involves a deeper connection than mere belief. We could, of course, use it in the same sense of belief, but it would empty its meaning.
|
|
It is certainly not useful to assume that the sun will not rise tomorrow. That is why I make the choice to believe that it will. Being caught up in an existential quandary because I realise that everything I know could be false, and therefore I can't rely upon my experience as a guide, is likewise a pretty useless philosphical position. However, there isn't much that philospohy can really say on the subject other than 1) experience is no guide to the future and 2) we cannot trust our own senses even if what we experienced could be relied upon. While that really doesn't help you live your life as such, it does at least give you scepticism, which is necessary in assessing the claims people make (like the existence of God or, more specifically, that God wants them to do X).
I get what you are saying, and agree basically. A hardline view that we don't, and cannot, know anything only leaves us living naked in caves and eating raw deer. However, when it comes to the unknowable (like whether God exists) I think it is important to recognise the limits of scientific method. As it happens, I don't believe in God and I'm pretty sure that part of the reason for that is a scientific education - I don't find God to be a useful (or elegant) hypothesis when there are other explanations which fit the facts better. God is the original deus ex machina and so I guess that fails to appeal aesthetically. But I can't prove it conclusively, so I cannot say to a believer "You are wrong and here is why". Though I might consider them deluded, harmlessly or otherwise.
As an atheist, I am appaled how both atheists and religious people are so concerned about wether Hitler or Stalin or Osama or, I don't know, anyone is an atheist or not. As is well demonstrated by history, jerks and tyrants come in all flavors. I would say that we have fewer atheists in the "hall of villains" only because there have been fewer atheists. I don't think this is the point.
To me, the point of the modern atheism/religion debate is that some decisions are taken by governments based on personal beliefs in a deity, something which, by definition, cannot be investigated by any means. In particular, decisions concerning war, education, and meddling in the private lives of people. This is unacceptable and should be fought.
It is also very common to misrepresent science in the public debate in order to further theological ends. This is sometimes done in ignorance, which is excusable in a sense (although people should be careful when talking about things they do not grasp), but it is usually done in deliberate dishonesty. This is unacceptable and also is worth combating.
Finally, there is an idea that faith is not to be debated by rational arguments, being faith. This could be defended if some groups were not so prone to a)trying to contest one's atheism; b)trying to do the things I mentioned above. When one starts a debate, one cannot use as a last resort "this is not debatable. This is faith.". This is why I, returning to the matter at hand, do not think the original poster was rude with the woman. The perceived rudeness has more to do with the idea that faith claims have a special status in that they are not to be discussed while no other claims have such a status. I don't think this should be enforced, as I think all things are worthy of and should be debated.
|
|
...or is a fanatic anybody who does not immediately abase himself before you and your every proclamation? Because I have generally operated under precisely the opposite definition.
No, this is not what he said and I fail to see how any honest interpretation of his posts could conclude otherwise. My response is definitely colored by the fact that I kind of like David; I think he's a pretty good guy. He and I do *not* see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I think the tone of the above statement was over the top.
It is certainly not useful to assume that the sun will not rise tomorrow. That is why I make the choice to believe that it will. Being caught up in an existential quandary because I realise that everything I know could be false, and therefore I can't rely upon my experience as a guide, is likewise a pretty useless philosphical position. However, there isn't much that philospohy can really say on the subject other than 1) experience is no guide to the future and 2) we cannot trust our own senses even if what we experienced could be relied upon. While that really doesn't help you live your life as such, it does at least give you scepticism, which is necessary in assessing the claims people make (like the existence of God or, more specifically, that God wants them to do X).
I get what you are saying, and agree basically. A hardline view that we don't, and cannot, know anything only leaves us living naked in caves and eating raw deer. However, when it comes to the unknowable (like whether God exists) I think it is important to recognise the limits of scientific method. As it happens, I don't believe in God and I'm pretty sure that part of the reason for that is a scientific education - I don't find God to be a useful (or elegant) hypothesis when there are other explanations which fit the facts better. God is the original deus ex machina and so I guess that fails to appeal aesthetically. But I can't prove it conclusively, so I cannot say to a believer "You are wrong and here is why". Though I might consider them deluded, harmlessly or otherwise.
This is the beauty of rational debate. I agree with you completely :)
My favorite post so far.
Don't know what else to add. Excellent post all around.
Another note regarding the "atheism is also a belief system" - I was looking for a comic strip which summed it up pretty good.
If we go by this assertion (which I, btw, do not, Mr. Frost explained why above), then that would make all other monotheistic religious people not adhere to their chosen religion since, and here we go back to the OP too, you would also be atheists when it comes to other religions. Ergo would you also be believers in not believing in other gods, thus having a dual belief system.
It should now be obvious how strange this assertion is then.
|
|
Atheism is, in fact, the absence of belief in a deity or deities. To assert that atheism is "just another belief" is patently wrong by the very definition of the word atheism. There are four definitions for "belief" in the dictionary--none of them have any application to atheism.
For example, I am an atheist. As an atheist I lack a belief system when it comes to the notion of higher powers. I do not "believe" that there is no god, I simply lack a system by which that belief is possible.
This assertion that atheism is "just another belief" or as religious folks I know are want to tell me "just another religion" is hogwash. Atheism is antithetical to religion and belief and cannot, by definition, be a belief.
My two cents.
Calling atheism a belief is like calling bald a hair color.
|
So many emotions running rampant. I wanted to comment on the original post and then I'm done...
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss the existence of all other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Apparently this was received as offensive and I still don't see how.
This really isn't that difficult to understand why it can be received as offensive. (Although I agree that it shouldn't have been...) To this person, she feels that she is X and you called her Y. But she feels that she is so far removed from Y that to say that she is even close was offensive to her. Unfortunately, she didn't hear the words that were said. And the other thing is that -- "Truth hurts".
|
|
I guess that is right. Unfortunately that is the fine line between people saying "I do not believe in a higher power" and "I do not believe that there is (might be, could be etc.) a higher power. Both brand of people call themself atheists. The second (of the above) brand as often feverishly tries to convert people to their view (see, I try to avoid the word believe ;))as the most fervent believer in God (Alah, TFSM, Bob, Godess etc.) thus they as often as these provoke opposition.
edit: Sorry, this post came late and is directly linked to the definition od atheists that jason gave or quoted.
|
|
For the reasons I have outlined above, I believe that atheism is a belief. Is it "I don't believe in God" or "I believe God does not exist"? You are arguably asserting that God does not exist but also that something else does, be it a blindly mechanistic/probabilistic universe or whatever. That is a belief, and there is nothing wrong with that - it's what I believe. I'm assuming there isn't anyone who doesn't believe in anything at all, which is untenable as a belief. It may not be a big deal in the scheme of things but since we don't actually "know" anything we have to believe something.
|
|
For the reasons I have outlined above, I believe that atheism is a belief. Is it "I don't believe in God" or "I believe God does not exist"? You are arguably asserting that God does not exist but also that something else does, be it a blindly mechanistic/probabilistic universe or whatever. That is a belief, and there is nothing wrong with that - it's what I believe. I'm assuming there isn't anyone who doesn't believe in anything. It may not be a big deal in the scheme of things but since we don't actually "know" anything we have to believe something.
I agree with this. One thing I'm curious about -- Why do there seem to be so many Atheists out there who are adamant that what they believe is not a belief? As if it matters one way or the other. It's not like it changes their position. It kind of comes across as though if they can get people to agree that Atheism is not a belief that somehow that makes them more right. Why does this really matter?
|
|
Jeremy, out of curiosity, do you think her attack may also have had an element of homophobia about it? You seem to be fairly "out" but in some religious circles homosexuality is a sin, and she sounds like she was in the more reactionary wing of the Church. To some extent, this is a threadjack but also reinforces the suggestion that maybe religion serves to reinforce our prejudices rather than cause them. And it might explain why she was so upset (rather than your rather mild comment being offensive as such). (And I'm not suggesting that religious = homophobic, as I know that is not the case from many of the religious posters here; but we also know that homophobia exists.)
It is entirely possible I am fairly I'm active in the gay community, the university, and with a local political party, and the hospital. I don't believe I should ever have to hide who and what I am, and I frankly view anyone who has a problem with my homosexuality as there problem and something they have to deal with not me. But wether it was motivated by homophobia I still don't think it's justified to verbally attack someone. I can see how my response could be taken scathingly but I had said it in a very calm collected tone and then bowed out of the argument only because I felt no rational debate could be carried on with her emotions running so high.