The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49684
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CALHOUN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:44 AM (P)

The subject title is the title of an excellent documentary I recently watched on TV made by a professor of Oxford university. It is available in torrent form with a little looking.

Anyone else see this? Opinions?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:00 AM (P)

I’ve not read his book or seen the documentary. I’m aware of what it is about, but I don’t know what particular theory Dawkins takes on the issue.

I will say this on the general idea, as I understand it. Some people within secularist circles have long held the theory that religion is the cause of much or most violence in the world. This is, I think, a misguided assertion. Blaming religion is simply a convenient witch to burn for secularists. In reality, the whole idea makes no sense. If religion was really the cause of violence, it is almost hard to imagine that any of us are alive today or could function in society at all, given the prevalence of religion in our culture. Yet the vast majority of religious individuals are not only not violence but good and decent people. And many very religious communities, such as the Amish, live in far greater peace then modern secular society. Furthermore, it ignores the violence perpetrated in the name of atheistic philosophies, such as Communism and Fascism, which far exceeds the violence perpetrated in the name of religion. Once again I would point out that I’m not familiar with Dawkins’s particular theories on this matter, but as per the general idea, I think it’s ludicrous.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RIVER6213

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:18 AM (P)

As buffy 'versed as it may sound. It comes down to...it's all about power, and nothing more.

-River

MEG1448

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’ve not read his book or seen the documentary. I’m aware of what it is about, but I don’t know what particular theory Dawkins takes on the issue.

I will say this on the general idea, as I understand it. Some people within secularist circles have long held the theory that religion is the cause of much or most violence in the world. This is, I think, a misguided assertion. Blaming religion is simply a convenient witch to burn for secularists. In reality, the whole idea makes no sense. If religion was really the cause of violence, it is almost hard to imagine that any of us are alive today or could function in society at all, given the prevalence of religion in our culture. Yet the vast majority of religious individuals are not only not violence but good and decent people. And many very religious communities, such as the Amish, live in far greater peace then modern secular society. Furthermore, it ignores the violence perpetrated in the name of atheistic philosophies, such as Communism and Fascism, which far exceeds the violence perpetrated in the name of religion. Once again I would point out that I’m not familiar with Dawkins’s particular theories on this matter, but as per the general idea, I think it’s ludicrous.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Ludicrous? Really? It's been said before but I'll say it again....more people have died in the name of god than any other. Hundreds of millions have been the victims of religious persecution. The reason why we're still around is because we keep repopulating and because there are, thankfully, many rational people around. Religious extremists are really the problem. Not only do they believe whole-heartedly that what they preach is the only right way, some of them also wield enormous power. Unfortunately, they tend to give most religious people a bad name. To say that the violence perpetrated by atheists outweighs the violence perpetrated by people of faith is completely false and, well, fairly ridiculous. Atheists make up the vast minority of most cultures.

"Give me religion and a lobotomy."
Beulah Land-Tori Amos

LEADB

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:56 AM (P)

I have to agree with River; the violence is about power. Religion can be used by the power hungery to get folks to do things they might not otherwise. That does not prove religion is wrong, per se. It proves that folks will take routes to power, then use the tools available to them.

To some extent this is difference between religion and -organized- religion. It is the organization of religion which makes it vulnerable to being abused. On the other hand, it is natural for folks who follow a similar mindset to organize. So, chicken egg puzzle anyone?

I should add I'm a firm believer in the seperation of church and state; it's bad enough for folks to be able to seize power on one side, they shouldn't get the other side "for free."

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

CLJOHNSTON108

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:03 PM (P)

"Sadistic crap legitimized by florid prose. Tell me you're not a fan."
--Simon to Book, War Stories

Love that!

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Ludicrous? Really? It's been said before but I'll say it again....more people have died in the name of god than any other. Hundreds of millions have been the victims of religious persecution. The reason why we're still around is because we keep repopulating and because there are, thankfully, many rational people around. Religious extremists are really the problem. Not only do they believe whole-heartedly that what they preach is the only right way, some of them also wield enormous power. Unfortunately, they tend to give most religious people a bad name. To say that the violence perpetrated by atheists outweighs the violence perpetrated by people of faith is completely false and, well, fairly ridiculous. Atheists make up the vast minority of most cultures.

But three of the most vicious dictators of the 20ths century--Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot--slaughtered millions, and not in the name of religion. Hitler even based his genocide on pseudo-scientific eugenics theories. So religion doesn't have a monopoly on violence.

I think the previous posters are right: humans want power and they'll use whatever means they have at their disposal, including religion. Doesn't make religion bad as such, it just means that religion (like nationalism or science) can be twisted into a rationale for violence.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

TINADOLL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:45 PM (P)

*sigh*

Is every topic relating to Christianity on this site going to be a bating tactic for a fight?

I must say- If you guys don't believe in God or Christ why keep talking about it?

Scorpion:

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:02 PM (P)

Because it's an interesting subject? Besides, if you think there've been fights in these last few religion threads, you should check our RWED sometime. We're positively tame by comparison. And I hope you weren't accusing me of baiting anybody for a fight. The person I responded to asserted that religion is the primary source of violence. I merely pointed out three instances of massive violence that were not undertaken in the name of religion. That's hardly baiting anyone for a fight.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

TINADOLL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Because it's an interesting subject? Besides, if you think there've been fights in these last few religion threads, you should check our RWED sometime. We're positively tame by comparison. And I hope you weren't accusing me of baiting anybody for a fight. The person I responded to asserted that religion is the primary source of violence. I merely pointed out three instances of massive violence that were not undertaken in the name of religion. That's hardly baiting anyone for a fight.

I meant the title of this topic.. God Delusion?

Also the tone you just took when i mentioned the possible baiting- hostile? Why?

I agree that Religion is used to do lots of terrible things and the examples in your post against that were great. I agree with your post,my post wasn't in repsonse to your post it was responding to the original poster.

But as a practising Christian i sense a general hostility toward me and mine. And thats not kosher.All religions have thier bad eggs. Don't call me delusional just because i choose to believe in something that you don't.

Not all religious people are bad. Not all non religious people are good.

Scorpion:

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:19 PM (P)

The title of this thread was not invented by the author of the thread. The author of this thread should have posted a link or cited some source. It is the name of a documentary, which seeks (to my understanding) to justify in some way the position that religion is root of all evil. It seems to have become somewhat of a fad these days to make documentaries that are unnecessarily or inappropriately critical of religion, and in my opinion is indicative of a very religious intolerant attitude sweeping through our culture right now.

I’m sure both Causal and I share your frustration in this matter. Causal is not a poster who has ever demonstrated a desire to generalize or ridicule people for their religion or anything else really and typically has some very well thought out and informed posts that are worth reading and taking seriously.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Ludicrous? Really? It's been said before but I'll say it again....more people have died in the name of god than any other. Hundreds of millions have been the victims of religious persecution. The reason why we're still around is because we keep repopulating and because there are, thankfully, many rational people around. Religious extremists are really the problem. Not only do they believe whole-heartedly that what they preach is the only right way, some of them also wield enormous power. Unfortunately, they tend to give most religious people a bad name. To say that the violence perpetrated by atheists outweighs the violence perpetrated by people of faith is completely false and, well, fairly ridiculous. Atheists make up the vast minority of most cultures.

I'd like to see your sources on the "hundreds of millions" statistic.

I'd also like to see your sources on the notion that atheists are in the majority. Most cultural studies I've seen assert just the opposite. For instance, the CIA World Factbook ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html) lists the percentage of Americans claiming no religion at all as 10%. And according to a 2002 Pew Research Poll ( http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html), only 1% of respondents claimed to be atheists! Hardly the majority you claim.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Tinadoll:
I meant the title of this topic.. God Delusion?

The God Delusion is the title of a book by Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' central assertion is that religion is a destructive force in the world that ought to be rooted out (he has, I believe, suggested, among other things that religious educators should be removed from the classroom and that the state ought to remove children from religious homes).

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004/ref=p
d_bbs_sr_1/103-7753046-6183800?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179929644&sr=8-1

Quote:
Also the tone you just took when i mentioned the possible baiting- hostile? Why?

With all due respect, I think you may be slightly oversensitive. There is no "tone" in white words on a black background--there is only the text and what the text says. "Tone" comes from interpretation. I wasn't being hostile at all, just trying to answer the question of why we would want to discuss this topic.

Quote:
But as a practising Christian i sense a general hostility toward me and mine. And thats not kosher.All religions have thier bad eggs.

Well, as a practicing Christian myself, I have to agree that I have, at various times, felt the same sort of hostility you describe. But again, with reference to tone, I can't be sure how much is me being overly sensitive and how much is genuine antipathy. But then again, when you hear someone say they'd enjoy watching Christians being burned at the stake (which was said on these boards, if you can believe it), it's pretty clear that there's some hostility.

Quote:
Don't call me delusional just because i choose to believe in something that you don't.

I'm not calling you delusional, and I don't think that anyone else here is. That's just the title of the documentary that Calhoun saw.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

TINADOLL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The title of this thread was not invented by the author of the thread. The author of this thread should have posted a link or cited some source. It is the name of a documentary, which seeks (to my understanding) to justify in some way the position that religion is root of all evil. It seems to have become somewhat of a fad these days to make documentaries that are unnecessarily or inappropriately critical of religion, and in my opinion is indicative of a very religious intolerant attitude sweeping through out culture right now.

I’m sure both Causal and I share your frustration in this matter. Causal is not a poster who has ever demonstrated a desire to generalize or ridicule people for their religion or anything else really and typically has some very well thought out and informed posts that are worth reading and taking seriously.

Its rather unsettling to think that a nation of free people,with free thinkers who choose to practice whatever religion they want would support a movement like this is just perhaps preposturous. But then again- i have seen bigotry and closemindedness in the name of religion.

And that last thought- I am not here to bash anyone and this is only the second "religion" thread i have been a part of-so i'll take your word for it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tinadoll:
Quote:
... I meant the title of this topic.. God Delusion?

The God Delusion is the title of a book by Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' central assertion is that religion is a destructive force in the world that ought to be rooted out (he has, I believe, suggested, among other things that religious educators should be removed from the classroom and that the state ought to remove children from religious homes).

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004/ref=p
d_bbs_sr_1/103-7753046-6183800?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179929644&sr=8-1

I saw that. I have no interest in reading it.Sounds like hostility in the highest form

Quote:

Quote:
Also the tone you just took when i mentioned the possible baiting- hostile? Why?

With all due respect, I think you may be slightly oversensitive. There is no "tone" in white words on a black background--there is only the text and what the text says. "Tone" comes from interpretation. I wasn't being hostile at all, just trying to answer the question of why we would want to discuss this topic. I could well level the accusation of hostility at you given the fight-baiting remark that you made, but I didn't want to do that--that's why I made the comments that I did.

I,of course, was not refering to you as i said before- but to the original post.You can sense a tone from reading anything-and it would be different to anyone. I still have bad feelings from the last "religion" thread i was in.
It was said:
Quote:
asking questions like this and saying only devout believers should answer is going to get you a scewed opinion

makes me wanna GRRR ARRR
Quote:
...
Quote:
But as a practising Christian i sense a general hostility toward me and mine. And thats not kosher.All religions have thier bad eggs.

Well, as a practicing Christian myself, I have to agree that I have, at various times, felt the same sort of hostility you describe. But again, with reference to tone, I can't be sure how much is me being overly sensitive and how much is genuine antipathy. But then again, when you hear someone say they'd enjoy watching Christians being burned at the stake (which was said on these boards, if you can believe it), it's pretty clear that there's some hostility.

I have seen its pretty much one sided too. People are just looking for an agrument
Quote:
...
Quote:
.
Quote:
Don't call me delusional just because i choose to believe in something that you don't.

I'm not calling you delusional, and I don't think that anyone else here is. That'

KHYRON

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:49 PM (P)

I propose the admins move this thread to RWED. How can we discuss this topic meaningfully if we aren't allowed to throw personal abuse at each other!?

Seriously though, I'm an atheist and for the most part I like Dawkins, but I agree with everything Finn and Causal have said in this thread so far. While it's good that people like Dawkins are making people ask questions about the role of religion in general and their personal faith in particular, something that many of them may not have done before, he does take it a bit too far sometimes. Saying that religion is the root of all evil is just silly.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:05 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I propose the admins move this thread to RWED. How can we discuss this topic meaningfully if we aren't allowed to throw personal abuse at each other!?

Yeah! I hardly know what to do with myself without the vitriol and ad hominems that I've become so accustomed to.

Quote:
Seriously though, I'm an atheist and for the most part I like Dawkins, but I agree with everything Finn and Causal have said in this thread so far. While it's good that people like Dawkins are making people ask questions about the role of religion in general and their personal faith in particular, something that many of them may not have done before, he does take it a bit too far sometimes. Saying that religion is the root of all evil is just silly.

You should check out Marilynne Robinson's review of The God Delusion in the December 2006 Harper's (available here: http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/23/marilynne-robinson-on-dawkins/). It's a long read, but quite good. She takes him to task on any number of issues.

I agree that raising questions and prompting thinking and discussion is a good thing--I've been really stimulated by many of the discussions we've had on the boards lately (and I for one hope we continue to do these in General Discussions, as they seem slightly more civil).

I'd be curious to know, Khyron, what you make of the recent spate of books by folks like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I don't mind going toe-to-toe (intellectually) with atheists over issues concerning the philosophy of religion, because at the end of the day I find that most atheists have thought out their position well and are able to argue it coherently. In addition, many atheists have enough respect for argumentation that even if they disagree with the theistic perspective, they can at least respect that good, solid arguments can be advanced for theistic positions. So while atheists and I may not agree on the question of the existence of a deity, we can, at least, shake hands at the end of an argument and order a round of beers. Not so Dawkins and his crew. They seem to be arguing that religious belief is not only factually incorrect, but dangerous, and that religion should not be afforded tolerance from "progressive" cultures (which I find curious, because one of Dawkins' main criticisms of religion is its intolerance). As an atheist, what do you make of Dawkins and his fellows?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FOLLOWMAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Atheists make up the vast minority of most cultures.

I'd also like to see your sources on the notion that atheists are in the majority.

And I'd like to gently point out that minority was the word used.

To join us go here: http://www.serenitymovie.org/browncoats/forums/index.php?showtopic=870
5

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:22 PM (P)

Aw, crap! Thanks for the catch, FM! That makes the post make more sense.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FOLLOWMAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:26 PM (P)

Y/W

*bows respectfully*

To join us go here: http://www.serenitymovie.org/browncoats/forums/index.php?showtopic=870
5

COZEN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by FollowMal:
And I'd like to gently point out that minority was the word used.

I've no clue as to the statistical representation of minorities relative to disbelief in some God or other. Count me amongst that minority, with the common caveat that I hold no disrespect toward those who are certain that there is God, and that God has a plan that mayhaps only incidentally involves all of us.

I've met a lot of people who were leading troubled lives, running the gamut of childhood abuses to mere lack of self-confidence, yet have changed their approaches to living this life. I think it's reasonable to assume that we all have met and/or have been such people. A lot of people who have, um, re-invented themselves, or improved themselves via religious belief. In most cases, and I think this is largely due to where I live (Western Hemishpere, northwards), it is through the acceptance of "God" through Jesus Christ as their saviour, ergo Christianity. A minority of others have saved themselves from eternal hoplessness via Buddha and the sublime acceptance of reincarnation inherent with that. And a very few of my friends and acquaintances have found workable redemptions via pagan and Wiccan methodologies, and I luvs those nutters too.

In the end, all I can say for myself is that I, too, have experienced horrific troubles, just like anyone else has, and come through them to become a rather happy person, without the knowing assistance of a higher power such as God. Faith in my ownself, eh?

My opinion is that if God is a delusion, then that's alright by me, so long as it (It?), the concept, works as a tool to help people to improve their circumstances. Sorta in the same way that Newtonian physics is provably wrong at quantum levels, but works well enough as a tool to build modern conveniences and spaceships.

I don't believe in God, which, if I'm wrong, makes me delusional, eh? And how ironic would that be? Neither do I believe that religions are inherently resposible for all of humankind's ills, beyond the fact that religions have been used as tools for motivitaing large numbers of people toward accepting warfare (as a for instance), or dulling them to the realities of greedy behaviour by a select powerful few (Marx's opiate of the masses, as it were). I do, however, believe in myself, and that's a gorram good start.

Which begs the question: why am I drawn to these religiosity threads, eh? Am I looking for some form of salvation? Answer: beats the hell oughta me!

***
I luvs y'all. I really do, else I wouldn't bother with these naive posts o' mine. Serenifly has served it's purpose, even if there's never another tv episode or motion picture release. Thanks, Joss.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Tinadoll:
I have seen its pretty much one sided too. People are just looking for an agrument.

Well, I think that's true of some people on the boards (and maybe even some people in this very discussion). But I'm not sure that this is completely true. Take Khyron and I, for instance. I'm a theist, he's an atheist. But if he and I were to talk about the question of God's existence, it would be to have a fight, but to have a discussion (a philosophical argument, not an emotional one). I've only really seen one post on here that I would consider hostile--we seem to be behaving ourselves fairly well to this point. Perhaps we just want to talk about it.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by FollowMal:

Y/W

*bows respectfully*

Oh, stop that, cutey pants. How can I keep my game face on with you being all adorable?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FOLLOWMAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:40 PM (P)

*smiles mischeviously*

To join us go here: http://www.serenitymovie.org/browncoats/forums/index.php?showtopic=870
5

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Hitler even based his genocide on pseudo-scientific eugenics theories.

The Nazis were supported by the Catholics. The Nazi war-machine could not have functioned without them.

Hitler in his speeches spoke about removing the 'Jew' so a 'Christian' empire could flourish.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RIVERISMYGODDESS

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:41 PM (P)

I am not reading any of the posts, I just had this pop into my mind when I saw the title of the thread and thought I would share it with y'all.

Firstly, as we all know, time is money. Also, women are evil. Thirdly, we know that women take time and money to keep happy. Substituting in and simplifying yields:

Time = Money

Women = Evil

Women = Time * Money = Money^2 = Evil

Taking the square root of both sides, we get

Money = sqrt(Evil). :)

~jimi

any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with

It was Sassy-induced bulemia, gagging herself for no other reason than to look just like a Sassy cover girl.
It was Sassy-induced bulemia, she would GAG and SPIT and PUKE and BLEED her way into a perfect little world.

DEEPGIRL187

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:44 PM (P)

Religion isn't to blame for most of the world's violence; humans are to blame for most of the world's violence.

See how I summed that up there?

*************************************************

"If you want to win a war, you must serve no master but your ambition."

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Hitler even based his genocide on pseudo-scientific eugenics theories.
The Nazis were supported by the Catholics. The Nazi war-machine could not have functioned without them.

Hitler in his speeches spoke about removing the 'Jew' so a 'Christian' empire could flourish.

Ah, the RWE gang rolls in to disrupt our nice civil discussion.

Hitler killed Jews because of his understanding of nationalism and Social Darwinism, with a little eugenics thrown in to boot. He didn't kill them because as a "Christian" it was his duty to kill Jews. He killed them because he didn't want to see his precious "Aryan" race mongrelized by a nation with no roots and no home. Look at the Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda. They cast the struggle as Aryan vs. Jew, not Christian vs. Jew. Hitler really believed that killing off the Jews would be his service to all mankind, because on his view, the Aryans represented light and the Jews evil. As well, I know that the Catholic church was silent, but complicit? Hitler "couldn't have done it without them?" Those are claims in need of justification.

And if you're fond of pinning the blame for evil on religion, then why did Stalin, an atheist, slaughter (by some estimates) 10 million of his own countrymen? Or why did Pol Pot kill so many Cambodians? Or why were the Tutsis and Hutus killing each other? Respectively: power, power, power. Sometimes religion makes a great cover for a power grab, but I'd submit that most of what is commonly taken as purely religious violence is really just a power grab dressed up pretty (which is what I think Hitler was after: popularizing his Anti-Semitism by dressing it up, rather than it being genuine religious conviction).

That, of course, isn't to say there hasn't been much evil perpetrated on religious grounds, but people have been slaughtering each other far longer than there have been institutional religions, and should institutional religion ever vanish, people will still slaughter each other.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:01 PM (P)

Yes, Hitler did often use Christianity to appeal to the popular mass. After all, Germany was a Christian state, but Hitler also said this:

Quote:
Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies, is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration:
1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted. [[]Emphasis mine.[]]

-- Adolf Hitler in a speech at the Reichstag 30JAN1939.

So Hitler was not using Christianity as a tool of violence but rather as a tool to dishonestly assuage the fears of a Christian nation that would never have willing accepted Hitler’s atrocities. While Hitler himself was clearly not a supporter of Christianity, unless he was using it to tell the Germans of his religiously tolerant policies.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CRUITHNE3753

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:14 PM (P)

When I saw this originally broadcast on Channel 4 (UK) I couldn't help but notice that Pastor Ted Haggard (who Dawkins confronts in the programme) bears an uncanny resemblance to Patrick Swayze's character in Donnie Darko... it was a laugh when he hit the news with his "indiscretion" involving a male masseur. Two-faced git.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Ah, the RWE gang rolls in to disrupt our nice civil discussion.

I'm afraid, Casual, considering I didn't attack you, nor conduct myself in anything but a civil manner you don't get to blame me for any 'uncivil discourse' here. Especially when it is you who attacked me, I ask you, was this attack on me necessary? Or am I forbidden from having an opinion here?

Quote:
Hitler killed Jews because of his understanding of nationalism and Social Darwinism, with a little eugenics thrown in to boot.

Hitler killed the Jews because he was psychotic and lusted for power. He justified it with some psuedo-science, nationalism AND Catholicism.

Quote:
He didn't kill them because as a "Christian" it was his duty to kill Jews.

I never said he did. You said that Hitler, and the Nazis had nothing to do with religion, that is obviously not the case. They had tanks being blessed, Hitler played to the popular support of Catholics, the reasons for this (the fact they were the dominate group) are obvious, but the fact that HE didn't believe in Christianity, that HE didn't believe what they were doing was for the Christian god, does not remove the fact that many of his followers did.

I was merely pointing out that where you claim Hitler and Nazis 'had nothing to do with religion' isn't entirely the whole story.

Quote:
They cast the struggle as Aryan vs. Jew, not Christian vs. Jew.

They also cast it as building a Christian empire, that was what got a great deal of the population 'on side'.

Quote:
As well, I know that the Catholic church was silent, but complicit?

The Catholic church is known to have helped Nazis escape the Allies, the Pope used to be a member of the Hitler youth, the Catholic church holds more complicity than merely silence, but I was more thinking of the Catholics of Germany. Having said that, if Rome had not been so silent it's possible that Hitler wouldn't have gained that popular Catholic support.

Quote:
Hitler "couldn't have done it without them?" Those are claims in need of justification.

Really? You think saying "without the support of the largest group in Germany Hitler couldn't have done what he did" needs clarification?

Quote:
And if you're fond of pinning the blame for evil on religion, then why did Stalin, an atheist, slaughter (by some estimates) 10 million of his own countrymen? Or why did Pol Pot kill so many Cambodians?

You're making sweeping statements. Some evil acts being non-religious doesn't indicate there are no evil acts that are.

Furthermore, you're dragging me into a debate that I didn't comment on. I commented on one specific, that you seem to want to shoe horn into a generalisation I did not make.

Quote:
Sometimes religion makes a great cover for a power grab, but I'd submit that most of what is commonly taken as purely religious violence is really just a power grab dressed up pretty (which is what I think Hitler was after: popularizing his Anti-Semitism by dressing it up, rather than it being genuine religious conviction).

So Hitler not believing in Religion, not using that as his motivation, means his followers didn't? Does a cult leader not believing what he preaches mean cults aren't to blame for kool-aid incidents?

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So Hitler was not using Christianity as a tool of violence but rather as a tool to dishonestly assuage the fears of a Christian nation that would never have willing accepted Hitler’s atrocities. While Hitler himself was clearly not a supporter of Christianity, unless he was using it to tell the Germans of his religiously tolerant policies.

I totally agree, however my original comment was toward the assertion that Religion played no part in Hitlers plans or those of the Nazis, when plainly it did.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Ah, the RWE gang rolls in to disrupt our nice civil discussion.
I'm afraid, Casual, considering I didn't attack you, nor conduct myself in anything but a civil manner you don't get to blame me for any 'uncivil discourse' here. Especially when it is you who attacked me, I ask you, was this attack on me necessary? Or am I forbidden from having an opinion here?

Did you not see the big smiley face I put next to that comment? Or perhaps you began your reply before I had time to edit mine. In any event, that was meant as a bit of fun at your expense. Sorry that didn't quite come across.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:22 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Ah, the RWE gang rolls in to disrupt our nice civil discussion.
I'm afraid, Casual, considering I didn't attack you, nor conduct myself in anything but a civil manner you don't get to blame me for any 'uncivil discourse' here. Especially when it is you who attacked me, I ask you, was this attack on me necessary? Or am I forbidden from having an opinion here?
Quote:
Hitler killed Jews because of his understanding of nationalism and Social Darwinism, with a little eugenics thrown in to boot.
Hitler killed the Jews because he was psychotic and lusted for power. He justified it with some psuedo-science, nationalism AND Catholicism.
Quote:
He didn't kill them because as a "Christian" it was his duty to kill Jews.
I never said he did. You said that Hitler, and the Nazis had nothing to do with religion, that is obviously not the case. They had tanks being blessed, Hitler played to the popular support of Catholics, the reasons for this (the fact they were the dominate group) are obvious, but the fact that HE didn't believe in Christianity, that HE didn't believe what they were doing was for the Christian god, does not remove the fact that many of his followers did.

I was merely pointing out that where you claim Hitler and Nazis 'had nothing to do with religion' isn't entirely the whole story.
Quote:
They cast the struggle as Aryan vs. Jew, not Christian vs. Jew.
They also cast it as building a Christian empire, that was what got a great deal of the population 'on side'.
Quote:
As well, I know that the Catholic church was silent, but complicit?
The Catholic church is known to have helped Nazis escape the Allies, the Pope used to be a member of the Hitler youth, the Catholic church holds more complicity than merely silence, but I was more thinking of the Catholics of Germany. Having said that, if Rome had not been so silent it's possible that Hitler wouldn't have gained that popular Catholic support.
Quote:
Hitler "couldn't have done it without them?" Those are claims in need of justification.
Really? You think saying "without the support of the largest group in Germany Hitler couldn't have done what he did" needs clarification?
Quote:
And if you're fond of pinning the blame for evil on religion, then why did Stalin, an atheist, slaughter (by some estimates) 10 million of his own countrymen? Or why did Pol Pot kill so many Cambodians?
You're making sweeping statements. Some evil acts being non-religious doesn't indicate there are no evil acts that are.

Furthermore, you're dragging me into a debate that I didn't comment on. I commented on one specific, that you seem to want to shoe horn into a generalisation I did not make.
Quote:
Sometimes religion makes a great cover for a power grab, but I'd submit that most of what is commonly taken as purely religious violence is really just a power grab dressed up pretty (which is what I think Hitler was after: popularizing his Anti-Semitism by dressing it up, rather than it being genuine religious conviction).
So Hitler not believing in Religion, not using that as his motivation, means his followers didn't? Does a cult leader not believing what he preaches mean cults aren't to blame for kool-aid incidents?

See? And this is why I don't like RWE discussions. My point with Hitler: religion wasn't the cause of the Holocaust. That's all.

I just plain disagree with you, that's all.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So Hitler was not using Christianity as a tool of violence but rather as a tool to dishonestly assuage the fears of a Christian nation that would never have willing accepted Hitler’s atrocities. While Hitler himself was clearly not a supporter of Christianity, unless he was using it to tell the Germans of his religiously tolerant policies.

Yes, I think that’s about right. I’ve just gotten done with a history course at university during which we spent some time studying the Holocaust. The professor spent lots of time working with the ideas of fascism and nationalism and eugenics, and didn’t mention any religious motivations on Hitler’s part. Hitler was, though, masterful at manipulating people to get them to do what he wanted. Manipulating their religious affections must certainly have been part of that, but that does not mean that religion was what was motivating the man.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:36 PM (P)

Mmm...double-post-y goodness...

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Did you not see the big smiley face I put next to that comment? Or perhaps you began your reply before I had time to edit mine. In any event, that was meant as a bit of fun at your expense. Sorry that didn't quite come across.

I don't remember it being there when I replied.

Quote:
See? And this is why I don't like RWE discussions. My point with Hitler: religion wasn't the cause of the Holocaust. That's all. I just plain disagree with you, that's all.

Since I didn't say Religion was responcible for Hitlers thinking I'm not sure how you're 'disagreeing' with me

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Since I didn't say Religion was responcible for Hitlers thinking I'm not sure how you're 'disagreeing' with me .

See? See? You're bringing out my RWED instincts!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:54 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Furthermore, it ignores the violence perpetrated in the name of atheistic philosophies, such as Communism and Fascism, which far exceeds the violence perpetrated in the name of religion.

The mistake you are making here is that you are equating violence done in the name of a philosophy that includes atheism with violence done in the name of atheism. By this same logic all violence done in the name of theistic philosophies (which have outnumbered atheistic philosophies since the dawn of time) would be done in the name of theism. I'll grant the first point if you will grant the second since that still means that religion gets the higher body count.

MEG1448

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Ludicrous? Really? It's been said before but I'll say it again....more people have died in the name of god than any other. Hundreds of millions have been the victims of religious persecution. The reason why we're still around is because we keep repopulating and because there are, thankfully, many rational people around. Religious extremists are really the problem. Not only do they believe whole-heartedly that what they preach is the only right way, some of them also wield enormous power. Unfortunately, they tend to give most religious people a bad name. To say that the violence perpetrated by atheists outweighs the violence perpetrated by people of faith is completely false and, well, fairly ridiculous. Atheists make up the vast minority of most cultures.

I'd like to see your sources on the "hundreds of millions" statistic.

I'd also like to see your sources on the notion that atheists are in the majority. Most cultural studies I've seen assert just the opposite. For instance, the CIA World Factbook ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html) lists the percentage of Americans claiming no religion at all as 10%. And according to a 2002 Pew Research Poll ( http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html), only 1% of respondents claimed to be atheists! Hardly the majority you claim.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Ummm, actually, I said that atheists were the vast MINORITY not majority.

Hundreds of millions isn't that big of a number when you consider the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Protestant Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, etc....not to mention human sacrifices and the like.

"Give me religion and a lobotomy."
Beulah Land-Tori Amos

CALHOUN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Finn mac Cumhal wrote:
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 04:19
The title of this thread was not invented by the author of the thread. The author of this thread should have posted a link or cited some source. It is the name of a documentary, which seeks (to my understanding) to justify in some way the position that religion is root of all evil.

I thought the opening post made it quite clear that the title was from a documentary......

One of the main points of the documentary was that to believe in god one must cease all rational thought processes. Disregard all empiric and scientific evidence regarding the world and universe and just accept some words written in an old book to be the way of things.

It was quoted that surveys show around 45% of all americans believe the universe to be only 10,000 yrs old..

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
One of the main points of the documentary was that to believe in god one must cease all rational thought processes. Disregard all empiric and scientific evidence regarding the world and universe and just accept some words written in an old book to be the way of things.

I don't think Dawkins does atheists much justice when he goes all rhetoric on us like that. The reality is that belief in religion requires the suspension of rational thought, but only where said religion is involved. That in itself is a bad thing but not nearly as bad as Dawkins would have people believe.

Quote:
It was quoted that surveys show around 45% of all americans believe the universe to be only 10,000 yrs old..

I think that's a touch high, but not by much. This is a result of Young Earth Creationism and one of the reasons why Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in schools.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:22 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Hundreds of millions isn't that big of a number when you consider the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Protestant Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, etc....not to mention human sacrifices and the like.

Hundreds of millions is still a huge number. What's your source on it?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The reality is that belief in religion requires the suspension of rational thought, but only where said religion is involved.

That's a bold claim. How would you go about backing it up?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CALHOUN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:38 PM (P)

Maybe people should watch the documentary in order to make informed comment.

The initial post asked if anyone had seen the documentary and what their opinion of it was. It doesnt seem like anyone commenting actually watched the show.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
Maybe people should watch the documentary in order to make informed comment.

The initial post asked if anyone had seen the documentary and what their opinion of it was. It doesnt seem like anyone commenting actually watched the show.

Well, you made the claim that religious belief is irrational. How do you justify that claim? Or is that claim itself beyond rational proof?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The reality is that belief in religion requires the suspension of rational thought, but only where said religion is involved.

That's a bold claim. How would you go about backing it up?

Now that I look at it again I'd like to clarify, I wasn't trying to say that suspending rational thought was necessary for religion in general, what I meant was that situations come up where religious beliefs force irrationality. The same can be said for many other beliefs (political, economic etc.) but few people cling to those as strongly as religion.

I'll give an example, in the Bible there is the story of Noah's flood, there is no physical evidence that the flood ever happened and much that shows that it couldn't have happened given the world we have today. Yet there are many people who, when confronted with the evidence, simply deny it or go through a series of mental gymnastics to get around the evidence. The rational thing to do is to simply say that the story wasn't meant to be taken literally (which it most likely wasn't) and move on, or accept that it isn't literally true and re-evaluate your beliefs, yet their absolute faith in their religion makes them take the irrational route.

These same people are probably perfectly capable of rational thought, but when confronted with the irrationality of their beliefs they take positions of irrationality in order to justify their beliefs.

CALHOUN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Causal wrote:
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 13:41

Well, you made the claim that religious belief is irrational. How do you justify that claim? Or is that claim itself beyond rational proof?

I actually didnt.. I said the documentary made these assertions. I do however tend to agree with those assertions.

How can anyone claim to be "free thinking" if they deny all the evidence of evolution?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Furthermore, it ignores the violence perpetrated in the name of atheistic philosophies, such as Communism and Fascism, which far exceeds the violence perpetrated in the name of religion.

The mistake you are making here is that you are equating violence done in the name of a philosophy that includes atheism with violence done in the name of atheism. By this same logic all violence done in the name of theistic philosophies (which have outnumbered atheistic philosophies since the dawn of time) would be done in the name of theism. I'll grant the first point if you will grant the second since that still means that religion gets the higher body count.

I don’t believe that is a mistake I’m making and I don’t think that kind of hair splitting makes sense, which was my whole point to begin with. First of all, I’m not sure what the difference is between violence done in the “name of theistic philosophies” and violence done in the “name of theism.” That’s a degree of hairsplitting that doesn’t make any sense, since both of them seem likely to be defined as religion.

Were the Crusades fought in the name of theism or in the name of “theistic philosophies” or something else? The correct answer would be something else, because the actual Christian casus belli of the Crusades had nothing to do with religion. The Crusades were fought for defense of the Eastern Roman Empire or some Christian held territory against Muslim expansionism or simply Christian expansionism into the Middle East. But people who insist upon blaming the world’s violence on religion will always attempt to simplify it down to religion, just as the Christian leaders during the Crusades always simplified it, but this is just rhetoric. The actual motivations of both sides (Christian and Muslim) always boiled down to political, not religions, motivations. Hitler often used Christianity as a rallying cry to unite the German people just as the Popes during the Crusades did, but his motivations had nothing to do with Christianity either; he wasn’t even a Christian. He was operating on purely political, albeit twisted, rationale. Wars are not fought for religious reasons. They are fought for political reasons.

So I’m not willing to make the concession that you ask, because I don’t even believe in the concept.

And although, it is somewhat of a moot point, given that I don’t accept how the argument is qualified, I also don’t accept how the argument is typically quantified. If you add up all the deaths that have been the result of purely secular and political wars and genocide during the 20th century alone you will likely come to a number so large that you only have to go back a thousand years before you come to a time in history when there weren’t that many people on the entire planet. And that’s just the 20th century. So I’m not even sure that it is even possible for there to have been more deaths as a result of all the wars fought up to the 20th century then there were in just the 20th century. Much less to attempt to quantify this along religious lines.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:11 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Hundreds of millions isn't that big of a number when you consider the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Protestant Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, etc....not to mention human sacrifices and the like.

All of the casualties of all of the Crusades are probably not more then 10 million. The Thirty Years War is probably not more then a million. The Inquisitions: a few thousand a piece.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you add up all the deaths that have been the result of purely secular and political wars and genocide during the 20th century alone you will likely come to a number so large that you only have to go back a thousand years before you come to a time in history when there weren’t that many people on the entire planet.

But that's just it, most of those either were not fought for atheism or it was only a side issue. You are saying that Stalin was an atheist thus the millions of people he killed were killed in the name of atheism which simply isn't true, it's a non sequitur. The argument you were making sounded like you were saying that every conflict between groups that were not explicitly religious was somehow caused by atheism which is absurd.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:19 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
But that's just it, most of those either were not fought for atheism or it was only a side issue. You are saying that Stalin was an atheist thus the millions of people he killed were killed in the name of atheism which simply isn't true, it's a non sequitur. The argument you were making sounded like you were saying that every conflict between groups that were not explicitly religious was somehow caused by atheism which is absurd.

Yes, that is absurd, but that’s not what I said. What I was pointing out is that the “religion is the root of all violence” theory isn’t even internally consistent. It ignores casualties as a result of wars fought for which there is no religious motivation ascribed, and these are casualties that are the largest in history.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

MEG1448

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:37 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Hundreds of millions isn't that big of a number when you consider the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Protestant Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, etc....not to mention human sacrifices and the like.
All of the casualties of all of the Crusades are probably not more then 10 million. The Thirty Years War is probably not more then a million. The Inquisitions: a few thousand a piece.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Actually, the Thirty Years War had a death toll of about 7 million. I only named a few of the well known ones. Also, think about all the religious martyrs. I'm not only talking about christianity, I'm talking all religions. Think about the constant terrorist attacks in the middle east....it's really not that hard, counting all religions since the beginning of time, for the death toll to rise into the hundred millions. I'm done now, this conversation will just raise my blood pressure.

"Give me religion and a lobotomy."
Beulah Land-Tori Amos

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:48 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
But that's just it, most of those either were not fought for atheism or it was only a side issue. You are saying that Stalin was an atheist thus the millions of people he killed were killed in the name of atheism which simply isn't true, it's a non sequitur. The argument you were making sounded like you were saying that every conflict between groups that were not explicitly religious was somehow caused by atheism which is absurd.
Yes, that is absurd, but that’s not what I said. What I was pointing out is that the “religion is the root of all violence” theory isn’t even internally consistent. It ignores casualties as a result of wars fought for which there is no religious motivation ascribed, and these are casualties that are the largest in history.

Ah, ok. It's just that this quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, it ignores the violence perpetrated in the name of atheistic philosophies, such as Communism and Fascism, which far exceeds the violence perpetrated in the name of religion.
Sounds as if you are saying that atheism is to blame for those deaths.

JEDIJAYNE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:55 AM (P)

Well, I must say that I am TIRED after reading everything before me.

Religiosity to the fuzzy-wuzzies and all of their nougaty goodness and what-not.

Y'all wake me up when the shouting is over. I'll be in my bunk.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"This is why we lost, you know. Superior numbers." "Thanks for the re-enactment, sir."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Sounds as if you are saying that atheism is to blame for those deaths.

I am. But only insofar as theism is to blame for all the rest. Like I said, it’s not an internally consistent argument. You can’t claim that religion, as Dawkins defines it, is to blame for the world’s violence, because it necessarily ignores Communism and Fascism.

And evidently, I'm shouting, although it didn’t seem that way to me.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:16 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
How can anyone claim to be "free thinking" if they deny all the evidence of evolution?

How does being constrained to the evidence of evolution make one a free thinker? Granted I typically accept the theory of evolution to a large degree; there are parts of it that I accept more then others, but I do so because I choose to, and that is what makes me a free thinker, not that I accept a theory because someone else says I have to.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CALHOUN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:12 AM (P)

Quote:
Finn mac Cumhal wrote:
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 15:16
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Calhoun:
How can anyone claim to be "free thinking" if they deny all the evidence of evolution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does being constrained to the evidence of evolution make one a free thinker? Granted I typically accept the theory of evolution to a large degree; there are parts of it that I accept more then others, but I do so because I choose to, and that is what makes me a free thinker, not that I accept a theory because someone else says I have to.

I prefer to accept theories or information in general based on scientific evidence or factual data.

CAUSAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:23 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
How can anyone claim to be "free thinking" if they deny all the evidence of evolution?

What if they don't? I'll say this much: if you look at the history of life on earth, it's been increasing in complexity and diversity. But I don't have to then say, "So therefore there's no God." What if I think random chance is totally implausible?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
All of the casualties of all of the Crusades are probably not more then 10 million. The Thirty Years War is probably not more then a million. The Inquisitions: a few thousand a piece.

Also, don't forget that while the Thirty Years' War may have started over religion, it ended being about political power.

What? Power? There's that word again...

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:30 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Actually, the Thirty Years War had a death toll of about 7 million. I only named a few of the well known ones. Also, think about all the religious martyrs. I'm not only talking about christianity, I'm talking all religions. Think about the constant terrorist attacks in the middle east....it's really not that hard, counting all religions since the beginning of time, for the death toll to rise into the hundred millions. I'm done now, this conversation will just raise my blood pressure.

So the "hundreds of millions" figure was just pulled out of thin air, then?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:50 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I prefer to accept theories or information in general based on scientific evidence or factual data.

And therein lies your own set of unprovable beliefs.

Who says scientific data is the only kind of data that has evidentiary quality? Surely this is nothing more than epistemological imperialism. Much stock is given to the idea that only things that are empirically verifiable count as knowledge. But curiously, there's no way to empirically verify that idea!

Furthermore, the idea that only material things exist is also an unprovable hypothesis. Universal statements like that reduce to the form, "Given any X, X is physical." But that sort of universal is impossible to prove because to prove it, you'd have to have access to every X that currently exists, and ever did exist and ever will exist, and then you'd have to have a way to test all those Xs to see if they really were purely physical. And of course, it's ludicrous to think that we could ever gather all Xs for examination, and it's doubtful whether we're equipped to examine them all.

I guess the main point is that a purely scientific worldview rests on unprovable hypothesis, just like religion does. Its foundations rest on certain metaphysical and epistemological commitments which, though they be so widely repeated and so widely accepted as to appear to be beyond doubt, are really nothing more than the fruits of philosophical inquiry. To quote John Stuart Mill, "The truths which are ultimately accepted as the first principles of a science are really the last results of a metaphysical analysis."

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

MEG1448

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
Actually, the Thirty Years War had a death toll of about 7 million. I only named a few of the well known ones. Also, think about all the religious martyrs. I'm not only talking about christianity, I'm talking all religions. Think about the constant terrorist attacks in the middle east....it's really not that hard, counting all religions since the beginning of time, for the death toll to rise into the hundred millions. I'm done now, this conversation will just raise my blood pressure.

So the "hundreds of millions" figure was just pulled out of thin air, then?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

*sigh*

"Give me religion and a lobotomy."
Beulah Land-Tori Amos

TRUEBLUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:16 AM (P)

Religion is easily used as a tool of violence.

When you remove the need for logic and take it on "faith" you can justify to yourself/others illogical and obscene actions.

"Because God wants you to" sentiment has caused much pain and grief. God, him/her/itself is not the root of it, but it is an efficient and easy vehicle. Sadly one that has often been employed.

Without organised religion there may have been drastically less problems (it certainly would have made the destruction/death/pain more difficult), but maybe not. It is all hypothetical.

---------
I will think of a signature later. It will be so stunningly brilliant your entire life will pale into insignificance when compared to the few words that will be written here.

CALHOUN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:51 AM (P)

Quote:
Causal wrote:
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 16:50
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I prefer to accept theories or information in general based on scientific evidence or factual data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And therein lies your own set of unprovable beliefs.

Who says scientific data is the only kind of data that has evidentiary quality? Surely this is nothing more than epistemological imperialism. Much stock is given to the idea that only things that are empirically verifiable count as knowledge. But curiously, there's no way to empirically verify that idea!

Furthermore, the idea that only material things exist is also an unprovable hypothesis. Universal statements like that reduce to the form, "Given any X, X is physical." But that sort of universal is impossible to prove because to prove it, you'd have to have access to every X that currently exists, and ever did exist and ever will exist, and then you'd have to have a way to test all those Xs to see if they really were purely physical. And of course, it's ludicrous to think that we could ever gather all Xs for examination, and it's doubtful whether we're equipped to examine them all.

I guess the main point is that a purely scientific worldview rests on unprovable hypothesis, just like religion does. Its foundations rest on certain metaphysical and epistemological commitments which, though they be so widely repeated and so widely accepted as to appear to be beyond doubt, are really nothing more than the fruits of philosophical inquiry. To quote John Stuart Mill, "The truths which are ultimately accepted as the first principles of a science are really the last results of a metaphysical analysis."

Judging from the frequency and verbosity of your posts i'm starting to think that you're either a religious fanatic yourself or that you just like the sight of your own text.

CALHOUN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:53 AM (P)

I was kinda hoping Citizen would weigh in a little more than he has.. I always enjoy his perspective.

CALHOUN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:57 AM (P)

For anyone interested in downloading the torrent and checking it out here are some links http://isohunt.com/torrents/root+of+evil?ihs1=12&iho1=d&iht=1

CAUSAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by TrueBlue:
Religion is easily used as a tool of violence.

When you remove the need for logic and take it on "faith" you can justify to yourself/others illogical and obscene actions.

"Because God wants you to" sentiment has caused much pain and grief. God, him/her/itself is not the root of it, but it is an efficient and easy vehicle. Sadly one that has often been employed.

Without organised religion there may have been drastically less problems (it certainly would have made the destruction/death/pain more difficult), but maybe not. It is all hypothetical.

I think that maybe if there were no institutional religion, people would just find other things to justify their wars with. My basic assertion is that while it is true that religion has been the direct cause of much violence, it's probably less than is commonly suspected. Take the Thirty Years' War. It definitely started over religion. But by mid-way through the war, France (a Catholic country) was allied with Sweden (a Protestant country) because France felt threatened by the Hapsburg-dominated Spanish and Germans and Sweden wanted to face off with the Spanish. So it wasn't religiously motivated at that point--it was about shifting the European balance of power.

You're right that religion is easily used as a justification for violence, but so was Hitler's pseudo-scientific eugenics program. I think that one thing that's common to all the various instances of violence is that people perpetrate them. It's not that if we just removed the source of strife (be it religion for Dawkins or private property for Marx) the natural goodness of humanity would burst forth and we'd all march hand-in-hand into utopia. It's that we're hopelessly wretched creatures who always have and always will find excuses to brutalize one another.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
Judging from the frequency and verbosity of your posts i'm starting to think that you're either a religious fanatic yourself or that you just like the sight of your own text.

Judging from your response to my post, I'm starting to think that you're an anti-religious bigot or that you can't stand to listen to people who disagree with you.

I'm trying to discuss the questions at hand. I actually really enjoy talking about this stuff, hence the "frequency and verbosity" of my posts. And yes, I am a religious believer, but I'm also a philosopher, and as such I take exception to people who claim that I'm inherently irrational. If you'd bothered to read my last post, you'd see that that was the issue that I was trying to address. Science is founded on certain unprovable assertions no less than religion is. I suppose you can't be bothered to read, understand and respond to that though. Much easier to insult me. Plus if you can conveniently label me a "fanatic" it gives you a good reason to not have to listen to what I have to contribute to the conversation. In which case, you're being every bit as close-minded as the religious people you hold in such contempt.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:22 PM (P)

Causal, just to let you know, I'm not ignoring your question, I'll respond to it on the weekend. Only got time to post unfunny wisecracking one-liners at the moment.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:48 PM (P)

"It was quoted that surveys show around 45% of all americans believe the universe to be only 10,000 yrs old.."

I have a hard time believing that number, surely this can't be true. I know so many people and none of them would agree with that. That question must have been posed in a crazy religious area of the country........Well, I hope so.........

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
What if I think random chance is totally implausible?

If it were based on random chance then evolution would be implausible, thankfully, it's not based on random chance so thats not an issue.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"It was quoted that surveys show around 45% of all americans believe the universe to be only 10,000 yrs old.."

I have a hard time believing that number, surely this can't be true. I know so many people and none of them would agree with that. That question must have been posed in a crazy religious area of the country........Well, I hope so.........

Like I said, I'm pretty sure it's high, but it's not THAT high, there's a lot of people who've received more "education" about the world from their preachers then their teachers.

CAUSAL

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
What if I think random chance is totally implausible?

If it were based on random chance then evolution would be implausible, thankfully, it's not based on random chance so thats not an issue.

Huh. I didn't know that. Can you explain it? I must confess my ignorance on the issue. I'm a philosopher, not a scientist, so I really don't understand it as well as maybe I ought. I'd always just thought chance was the mechanism. If that's not the case, can you help me understand what is?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Huh. I didn't know that. Can you explain it? I must confess my ignorance on the issue. I'm a philosopher, not a scientist, so I really don't understand it as well as maybe I ought. I'd always just thought chance was the mechanism. If that's not the case, can you help me understand what is?

Well it goes like this, a random mutation (or 10 or 20) will be introduced during the creation of a new creature (be it by asexual division or sexual reproduction), most of these mutations are neutral, a few are harmful and a few are beneficial. The harmful mutations reduce an organisms ability to survive and thus reduce the likelihood of successful reproduction, these will be removed from the gene pool fairly swiftly (depending on how harmful they are). The beneficial ones will improve the likelihood of reproduction and the number of offspring.

In any given environment there will be selective pressure towards certain things, for instance in the early days when predation was just beginning in earnest there would have been enormous selective pressure towards evolving tougher skin to prevent being eaten, and once tougher skin started to show up the predators would be under selective pressure to evolve better eating mechanisms (be it sharp teeth or powerful jaws or both). Another more modern example is bacteria that are under selective pressure to become resistant to antibiotics, the bacteria that through a genetic fluke are slightly more resistant to the antibiotic being used will reproduce more.

There is an element of randomness in the initial mutations but after the mutations are introduced selection (which is not random) comes into play.

CAUSAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 2:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Like I said, I'm pretty sure it's high, but it's not THAT high, there's a lot of people who've received more "education" about the world from their preachers then their teachers.

Thankfully, not all of us religious people are that way. Personally, I think there can be harmony between science and religion. I just wish that religion would stop trying to answer scientific questions (like, "How old is the universe") and that science would stop trying to answer religous/philosophical questions (like, "What--if any--are the moral implications of abortion").

I think that Thomas Aquinas said it well: "The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

And Mortimer Adler, in Truth in Religion summarizes Augustine as follows:

"Augustine acknowledged the existence of the many different interpretations that were extant in his day...While upholding the possibility of multiple interpretations, he was also persuaded that these diverse interpretations might not be equally correct. He, therefore, recommended two rules that should be followed in interpreting Scared Scriptures.

"His first precept was: Hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. Since it is the revealed truth, we must never abandon our belief in its truth.

"His second precept followed: Since Sacred Scripture can be interpreted in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular version only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it should prove to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of nonbelievers and obstacles be placed in the way of their believing."

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Friday, May 25, 2007 2:59 AM (P)

I don't have anything to add to my previous comment.

However, regarding the 45% of folk think the world is less than 10,000 years old "issue", you might find this of use:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061110.html

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

CAUSAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 3:08 AM (P)

Nice! Good article, Lead.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

ROLAND19

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:40 AM (P)

The Nazis had the German translation of "God with us." inscribed on their belts, if I remember correctly.

As far as the book goes, it's complete shit.

And I have to agree with DeepGirl187, it's people that are to blame, not religion.

CALHOUN

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:54 AM (P)

LeadB, interesting article.

Quote:
How does the U.S. compare with other countries in terms of belief in evolution? Not so hot. A study of attitudes in 34 countries published in Science in 2006 shows that the United States ranks last in popular acceptance of evolution except for Turkey. Almost 40 percent of Americans in this study flatly rejected evolution, whereas the comparable numbers in European countries and Japan ranged from 7 to 15 percent. That may partly reflect U.S. high school kids' dismal math and science scores relative to other developed countries, which to my mind underscores a home truth: the more you know, the less you take on faith.

CALHOUN

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:59 AM (P)

Quote:
Roland19 wrote:
Thursday, May 24, 2007 19:40

And I have to agree with DeepGirl187, it's people that are to blame, not religion.

I wonder exactly how many suicide bombers are atheists?

BIBLEFIXER

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:41 AM (P)

Why don't we ask them? Compile a survey of their inner personal motivations? Oh yea, because…

Just keep walking preacher man!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, May 25, 2007 10:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by meg1448:
To say that the violence perpetrated by atheists outweighs the violence perpetrated by people of faith is completely false and, well, fairly ridiculous. Atheists make up the vast minority of most cultures.

I can't say you're outright wrong here, but I have to give this one to Finn. I don't think that Athiests are as much of a minority as you think anyways. I keep hearing that USA is one of the most religious societies, but I don't see it. At least not in my generation anyhow. I don't know a single person that is under 30 that even goes to church. I know there are people under 30 who do, but I don't know any personally that have gone after their parents stopped making them go, if they ever went in the first place, and the more people I meet in life, the more I believe this to be true. Religion is dying in America. America is so secular and materialistic and greedy now it's revolting. It's a gimmie gimmie culture and nobody gives a shit about anybody but themselves. I don't see any religion here, in fact, I don't even see it in the churches. Sadly, the most religious places in this country may very well be the Mosques.

All of this is besides the main point here because you even admitted yourself that people who wanted power used religion to get stupid and/or poor and/or weak people do do their bidding. These people often thought what they were doing was for god, but they were merely puppets on a string. Finn's point anyhow was that many, many people have died for secular causes, which is undeniable truth, and though it is also true that many, many people have also died in the name of "god", just because you throw out huge numbers of people who have died because of religion doesn't make those numbers true, and doesn't even come close to deep analysis required of all of the many different battles mankind has endured to determine just how much of those were based on religion and how many were purely secular based. Please site some reliable sources other than Dawkins biased bile, or something that you heard that you want to believe because you blame religion for the worlds problems and it fits what you want. Dawkins, in my opinion,is disgusting human being and just cashing in on Neo-Atheism.

For the record, I'm Agnostic, I'm under 30 and I haven't been to church since my Mom made me go, probably 15 years ago when she slapped me for saying "Yummy!" and smiling real big when I ate the host. I'd also like to add that I think Atheists are a stupid and bullheaded people. You don't need to believe.... hell, I'll probably die having never believed... but you should never close your mind to the possibility. Sometimes I hope there is a god that makes them burn for a couple of weeks post mortem just for their idiocy and close mindedness. And yes.... I can say that without being a hypocrite for judging, because the one thing I have in common with any idiot Athiest is that I'm not a practicing Christian, and until such time that I am, should I ever choose to be, I'm not beholden to their rules either.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CAUSAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 12:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
Quote:
Roland19 wrote:
Thursday, May 24, 2007 19:40

And I have to agree with DeepGirl187, it's people that are to blame, not religion.

I wonder exactly how many suicide bombers are atheists?

Well, Stalin certainly didn't have religious motivation for slaughtering all those people. He just wanted to solidify his power base. How do you account for that?

Also, interestingly enough, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a nationalist group in Sri Lanka, has carried out more suicide bombings than any other organization on Earth, and their beef isn't religious, it's political.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CALHOUN

Friday, May 25, 2007 1:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Causal wrote:
Friday, May 25, 2007 02:08
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Calhoun:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland19 wrote:
Thursday, May 24, 2007 19:40

And I have to agree with DeepGirl187, it's people that are to blame, not religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder exactly how many suicide bombers are atheists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, Stalin certainly didn't have religious motivation for slaughtering all those people. He just wanted to solidify his power base. How do you account for that?

You just keep answer questions with questions..

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 1:30 PM (P)

Consider this: compare the Inquisitions with the Jewish Question. Both of them were examples of bigotry against Jews (among others) at is most despicable level, and both sought to eliminate Jewry from the population. But the Inquisitions wanted to convert the Jews to Christians, and they often used murder and torture to extort that goal, but while their goals may have included the elimination of Jewish belief among the population, it never included the elimination of people simply for being Jews. That far, far more callous and hatful goal would come from the Nazis, who were not motivated by religion, and who were far more successful and calculated then any of the Inquisitions. It is not difficult to see that the absence of religion allowed the Nazis to view traditional anti-Semitism in a much more cold and deliberate manner, in much the way, the absence of religion allows scientists to view nature in a dispassionate manner, as opposed to an emotional one.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 2:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I don't have anything to add to my previous comment.

However, regarding the 45% of folk think the world is less than 10,000 years old "issue", you might find this of use:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061110.html

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

The other choices are as ridiculous as the first choice..

# "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." We'll call this the theistic view.

# "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." I'll term this the naturalist view.

I don't know about the other Americans on this board, but this American equates 'human' with 'Homo sapiens', and was taught in school that we popped up about 250,000 years ago......I wouldn't have been able to answer this question, frankly I would have laughed at the baboon who asked it........Well, I'm correct...I think.......

CAUSAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 4:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
You just keep answer questions with questions..

And you just keep dodging mine, so don't go trying to claim the moral high ground.

But since you said something about it: I have no idea how many suicide bombers are atheists. But then again, I suspect you don't either. You're merely assuming that all suicide bombings are religiously motivated, in spite of the fact that I gave information about suicide bombers (the LTTE) who aren't.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
that science would stop trying to answer religous/philosophical questions (like, "What--if any--are the moral implications of abortion").

This is a new one on me. I was aware that there is a movement forming to try and come up with a science based code of ethics but I wasn't aware that they were answering specifics like that.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Finn's point anyhow was that many, many people have died for secular causes, which is undeniable truth

Right...but those causes weren't driven by atheism. Most of the people Stalin killed were killed because of political reasons so the fact that Stalin was an atheist doesn't matter. In the meantime there has been a large number of people who have been killed specifically because of their religious beliefs.

This is like saying that anyone killed by a religious leader was killed for religious purposes which is patently false, just like the assertion that everyone killed by a culture steeped in atheism was killed because of atheism. The contention that many of us here have is that more people have died because of religiously motivated conflict then because of atheisticly motivated conflict. I would think this would be not only obvious but quite logical as atheism (at least in m experience) arouses more zeal in the theist them the atheist.

Quote:
and doesn't even come close to deep analysis required of all of the many different battles mankind has endured to determine just how much of those were based on religion and how many were purely secular based.

As I just said, conflicts that are not religious are not inherently atheistic, unless it can be demonstrated that atheism is a specific cause then the conflict is non-theistic, not atheistic.

Quote:
I'd also like to add that I think Atheists are a stupid and bullheaded people. You don't need to believe.... hell, I'll probably die having never believed... but you should never close your mind to the possibility.

I know very few atheists who wouldn't admit the possibility, but we just don't think it's true.

CITIZEN

Friday, May 25, 2007 6:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
What if they don't? I'll say this much: if you look at the history of life on earth, it's been increasing in complexity and diversity. But I don't have to then say, "So therefore there's no God." What if I think random chance is totally implausible?

Evolution doesn't preclude God, but Intelligent design Includes God. God is inherently unscientific as existance of God can neither be proven nor disproven, thus Intelligent Design is not Science, and therefore not an alternative to evolution.

The other point is that there is not a lot of 'random chance' in Evolution. Certainly no more than there is in any natural system, from Radioactivity, to whether or not the intrepid explorer gets away from the Lion alive. Evolution is an explination for speciation, not where life comes from.

There are theories for where life came from, some more credible than others. Some have fantastic possibilities. Life is, at it's basic level, just a complex chemical reaction. Since chemical reactions happen naturally all the time, one theory is that, where you have the ingrediants for life, coupled with the enviroment for life, life is certain to start, in the same way that pouring acid on your table is certain to leave a hole.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

MALACHITE

Friday, May 25, 2007 6:31 PM (P)

Not to be too tangential, but this discussion does not take into account how many lives and and how much suffering people with religious motivations have saved/improved. Compassion International, the Salvation Army, and numerous other religious organizations have made a positive impact on many lives. I was just at a disaster preparedness seminar and was surprised to hear just how important religious organizations are to coping with disasters (like feeding and sheltering victims and rebuilding their communities).

MALACHITE

Friday, May 25, 2007 6:40 PM (P)

I think the assertion that life is "just" a chemical reaction tends to gloss over the complexity of it all. We humans still have not invented anything that approaches the complexity of a single cell. And we still (with all of our technology and scientific knowledge) cannot create a cell from scratch, let alone offer a viable explanation on how it could have occured. If the creation of life happened naturally (without divine intervention), it defied the odds.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 6:48 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
We humans still have not invented anything that approaches the complexity of a single cell.

Modern cells are going to be MUCH more complex then the earliest self-replicators, we have made things more complex then the earliest self-replicators needed to be.

Quote:
And we still (with all of our technology and scientific knowledge) cannot create a cell from scratch, let alone offer a viable explanation on how it could have occured.

There are viable explanations as we have done experiments that caused the creation of amino acids ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment), done in conditions that matched conditions that likely existed on pre-biotic earth. Biochemistry shows that the development of life through natural processes is quite possible.

Quote:
If the creation of life happened naturally (without divine intervention), it defied the odds.

In RWED there's a thread title "is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded?" where kaneman asked about the probability of life, this is the link I posted there.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 6:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Finn's point anyhow was that many, many people have died for secular causes, which is undeniable truth

Right...but those causes weren't driven by atheism. Most of the people Stalin killed were killed because of political reasons so the fact that Stalin was an atheist doesn't matter. In the meantime there has been a large number of people who have been killed specifically because of their religious beliefs.

Josef Stalin had millions of people killed because they were not perceived to believe or support Stalin’s brand of atheist communism. How is that any different then bin Laden having people killed for not supporting his brand of Islam? If we are going to use this kind of language then we should endeavor to apply it fairly. Stalin had millions killed in an effort to export his brand of atheist communism. If bin Laden murdered in the name of theism, then Stalin murdered in the name of atheism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Josef Stalin had millions of people killed because they were not perceived to believe or support Stalin’s brand of atheist communism. How is that any different then bin Laden having people killed for not supporting his brand of Islam? If we are going to use this kind of language then we should endeavor to apply it fairly. Stalin had millions killed in an effort to export his brand of atheist communism. If bin Laden murdered in the name of theism, then Stalin murdered in the name of atheism.

Yes and in an Atheist family the parents would let their children stay out all night having sex and taking drugs.

If Stalin's purges were Atheist, then Iraq is a Christian Crusade, after all George Bush is a Christain, and God did tell him to do it.

Actually, all though I don't think Iraq is a Christian Crusade, such a position would be much stronger than saying Stalin was killing for Atheism.

You trying to portray Stalin's purges as an Atheistic version of the obviously theistic terrorism of Al Qaeda is little more than word play, it's intellectually dishonest, frankly.

Religion is square centre in Bin Landen's thinking, belief in the non-existence of god wasn't even a side issue to the purges. The fact that you construct a sentence in such away as to shoe horn Atheism in, then throw away the communism aspect in order to put Atheism front, and centre changes that, not at all.

CITIZEN

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:22 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
this discussion does not take into account how many lives and and how much suffering people with religious motivations have saved/improved.

Because that is a different issue entirely. There are many non-thesist organisations. I suspect that at the end of the day, they at least 'cancel out', making the point moot.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Josef Stalin had millions of people killed because they were not perceived to believe or support Stalin’s brand of atheist communism.

I just read the entire wiki entry on the Great Purge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) nowhere is religion mentioned. You are saying that because Stalin was an atheist that the deaths that he caused were caused by atheism, can you back up the claim that atheism was a driving force behind his purges? Or is it more likely that the fact that he was an atheist had no bearing whatsoever on his decision to execute people who he felt were disloyal or dangerous to the power he held?

Quote:
Stalin had millions killed in an effort to export his brand of atheist communism. If bin Laden murdered in the name of theism, then Stalin murdered in the name of atheism.

If you can back up the assertion that Stalin killed those because of atheism then I'll accept that assertion, but nothing I've seen indicates that atheism had a significant bearing on the purges. I'll freely admit that there was probably some religious leaders executed during the purges that would not have been if Stalin was a theist, but they are most likely in the vast minority.

EDIT: P.S. what Cit said

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Religion is square centre in Bin Landen's thinking, belief in the non-existence of god wasn't even a side issue to the purges. The fact that you construct a sentence in such away as to shoe horn Atheism in, then throw away the communism aspect in order to put Atheism front, and centre changes that, not at all.

Atheism was the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Josef Stalin killed hundreds of thousand of people specifically for not be atheistic. He nearly destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church and he is responsible for the largest Jewish purge since Hitler. And he was no better to Moslems. How is that not killing in the name of atheism?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I just read the entire wiki entry on the Great Purge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) nowhere is religion mentioned.

Quote:
Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937-38.[25][26] During World War II, however, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated, until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 8:10 PM (P)

Here's a couple things I found when I Googled "Stalin atheist"

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-atheism_communism.php

Despite the valid arguments made on both those sites I'm willing to admit that atheism played a small part in Stalin's purges, but the vast majority of the dead were killed for purely political reasons.

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE