|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 07:21:00 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox stated: quote:
You are twisting my words. I never said that at all. You are putting a moral interpretation ("should") on something I said when I never advocated that particular moral suggestion.
I don't think I twisted your words so much as read them:
quote:
Another thing to consider is that if what you are predicting (a rapid acceptance of atheism as the mainstream worldview of modern societies) does happen, that is likely to fan the flames of violence among the fundamentalist minorities. After all, modern fundamentalism is arguably a reaction to secular society. So what would their reaction be to a powerful majority of outright atheists? (Edited to add: And then what would be the response to that response from the atheist majority?) I cringe at the thought of it.
That looks to me exactly like a warning of the dangers that it might stir up if atheism spread.
Lastly, Marf wrote:quote:
I don't think we should spread atheism. I think we should spread skepticism and critical thinking, which does not necessarily default to atheism IMO. Atheism by itself is nothing good or bad, so why would we spread it?
As you told someone else, Marf, "Speak for yourself." Religion is an almost absolute evil. I think atheism is positive and needed desperately in a world abused too long by religious wars, persecutions, and fanaticism. Atheism is simply the application of skepticism and critical thinking to the question of, and problem of, religion. Why should only the other kinds of magical thinking be critically examined, while the rampaging rogue elephant in the room is ignored?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/05/2007 07:22:30 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 08:30:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Mooner:
As you told someone else, Marf, "Speak for yourself." Religion is an almost absolute evil. I think atheism is positive and needed desperately in a world abused too long by religious wars, persecutions, and fanaticism. Atheism is simply the application of skepticism and critical thinking to the question of, and problem of, religion. Why should only the other kinds of magical thinking be critically examined, while the rampaging rogue elephant in the room is ignored?
Based on the paper I linked to in this thread people seem to tend to atheism when they are feeling more secure about their futures and are better educated. These things are tied to the policies of the countries they live in. For the most part, we can question religion as critical thinkers until we're blue in the face and without those policies in place that leave people feeling good about their general circumstance, we will be spitting into the wind.
Religion is systemic and tied to many factors. It's simplistic thinking that we skeptics will make inroads on the religion front while people are just trying to survive.
And Marf, the US is not very high on the list of countries that have a large number of atheists per capita. As an industrialized western nation, we pretty much rank last or close to last in that department. Again, we must look at why that is. Surely, a whole lot of insecurity as a people is at the bottom of this.
And Mooner, all religion is not evil. It may not be rational, and it may be used as a pretext for doing evil, but so are such things as patriotism. I find your blanket statements about religion rather hyperbolic to a point where it looses meaning.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 09:00:49 [Permalink]
|
Half wrote: quote:
That looks to me exactly like a warning of the dangers that it might stir up if atheism spread.
Yes, it is a warning. But that warning was not meant to be a reason why atheism should not be spread, it was only a reason why at least things in the short term might really suck is atheism spread too quickly. I don' think atheism should be spread, but it is not because I fear social upheaval. It is because I see no reason to risk social upheaval when I see no signs that atheism would improve the human condition. I'll probably being too picky about shades of meaning here, but it sounded to me like you were implying that I don't want to spread a necessary and good idea because it would shake things up.
quote:
I think atheism is positive and needed desperately in a world abused too long by religious wars, persecutions, and fanaticism.
Religious wars which always had other factors along with religion spurring them on. Religion, more often than not, has been one of the convenient excuses to rage war for other, more worldly and selfish or desperate reasons. Do you think that if everyone in the Middle East grew up middle class and in loving families that there would be terrorist blowing themselves and innocent civilians up all over the world over Allah? As for persecutions and fanaticism, since when was religion as pre-requisite for those? You seem very much to be making a claim that atheists are more likely to be more humane than religious folks. Present the evidence for that claim. Religion is everywhere. So you can't just point to where atrocities are happening and say "See, religion is causing this horrible thing to happen." because I could just as well point to people doing charitiable work and say "See, religion is causing this wonderful thing to happen." Show me evidence that religion is the direct cause of so much human suffering. Show me evidence that atheists are more likley to help other people and less likely to harm other people. This idea that atheism is morally superior to religion is bullshit in my opinion.
quote:
Atheism is simply the application of skepticism and critical thinking to the question of, and problem of, religion.
Bullshit! Atheism is the lack of belief in God! No amount of critical thinking is necessary for that! If atheism became the majority accepted worldview, most people would be atheists in the way that most people today are Christians: the would accept it as common knowledge without ever examining their own beliefs. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 04/05/2007 : 14:53:30 [Permalink]
|
I tried to wiki, but the Swedish page on "religion in Sweden" is less detailed that the English one. Go figure...
quote:
Today about 78% of Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden, but the number is decreasing by about one per cent every year, and Church of Sweden services are sparsely attended (hovering in the single digit percentages of the population).[47] The reason for the large number of inactive members is partly that until 1996, children became members automatically at birth if at least one of their parents were a member. Since 1996, all children that are baptised become members. Some 275,000 Swedes are today members of various free churches (where congregation attendance is much higher), and, in addition, immigration has meant that there are now some 92,000 Roman Catholics and 100,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians living in Sweden.[48] Due to immigration, Sweden also has a significant Muslim population. As many as 500,000 are Muslims by tradition[49] and between 80,000 - 400,000 of these are practising Muslims. (See also Islam in Sweden)
The 78% figure of the membership in the Church of Sweden is a bit misleading, because traditionally, all citizens were members of the church by default. Unlike America, Christianity, specifically Lutheran Protestantism was historically a State sponsored religion. The steady decline in membership reflects people dieing off, and some like me (who apparently, according to my latest tax-report is still member of the Church of Sweden) who get tired of paying 1% extra income tax to support the church.
I've must have seen this before in previous tax-reports, but decided to keep paying the tax. The best reason to continue doing so would be to support the often Grand Old churches that really is a cultural and historical inheritance. Some of those churches are awesome to view and visit, from many standpoints, and I'd hate to see them gone.
Anyway, this statistic is a bit misleading. How about this:
quote:
According to the most recent Eurostat "Eurobarometer" poll, in 2005,[50] 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god", whereas 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force". Sweden ranks aside with France and Russia on having a large minority of its citizens who have no religion. Independent of these statistics, it is generally known that Swedish society, collectively, is comparatively secular and non-religious.[51]
I'd like to note that among the 23% who professed a belief in God, the number of people who reject science and more specifically evolution (like Young Earth creationists: Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) are by my estimate less than half of those 23%.
Also note that people who voted "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" may have done so without expressing religion per say. I have a few coworkers who believe in a spiritual world or life force without connecting it to any common religion. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 17:29:14 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: quote:
And Mooner, all religion is not evil. It may not be rational, and it may be used as a pretext for doing evil, but so are such things as patriotism. I find your blanket statements about religion rather hyperbolic to a point where it looses meaning.
Which is why I qualified my statement: quote:
Religion is an almost absolute evil.
(My emphasis.) My opinion may be wrong, I may be overstating my case, but I can't see how saying this in strong terms makes it lose meaning. And I stand by my statement. I challenge anyone to propose a worse human-created evil that has plagued society for thousands of years.
Marf scribed:quote:
Religious wars which always had other factors along with religion spurring them on. Religion, more often than not, has been one of the convenient excuses to rage war for other, more worldly and selfish or desperate reasons. Do you think that if everyone in the Middle East grew up middle class and in loving families that there would be terrorist blowing themselves and innocent civilians up all over the world over Allah? As for persecutions and fanaticism, since when was religion as pre-requisite for those? You seem very much to be making a claim that atheists are more likely to be more humane than religious folks. Present the evidence for that claim. Religion is everywhere. So you can't just point to where atrocities are happening and say "See, religion is causing this horrible thing to happen." because I could just as well point to people doing charitiable work and say "See, religion is causing this wonderful thing to happen." Show me evidence that religion is the direct cause of so much human suffering. Show me evidence that atheists are more likley to help other people and less likely to harm other people. This idea that atheism is morally superior to religion is bullshit in my opinion.
Thanks for the invitation.
Wars are probably almost never caused by just one factor, but religion is right up there at the top, as the single greatest motive for wars. And even in those cases when a war of conquest may have been merely "justified" by citing religion, that power of justification is also a deadly manifestation of religion's evil.
Here is a brief list of a few religious wars:
All the genocidal wars described in the Old Testament. Though many of these may be mythical, there were probably others that were not recorded.
After Muhammad died on June 8, 632, his followers swept across much of Asia, Africa, and Europe in a rapid wave of Islamic expansion which often used warfare and wholesale enslavement to achieve its ends.
I have counted somewhere around a score of Crusades, mostly sanctioned by the Pope, in which Christian Europeans attacked, conquered, tortured, enslaved and massacred uncounted numbers of people in Europe, Asia, and Africa for stated religious reasons. Even Crusades against Pagans and heretical Christians in Europe -- and, in one case, against Catholics who simply opposed their power-hungry archbishop.
The Reconquista, the incredibly vicious, seven-and-a-half century war in Spain and Portugal by Christian monarchs to recapture Iberia from the Islamic Caliphs of Al-Ándalus.
The French Wars of Religion, a struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism in the 16th Century. One "highlight" of those wars was the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, in which thousands of Protestant Huguenots were slaughtered.
The Thirty Years War, a massive showdown conflict from 1618 to 1648 between the Catholic and Protestant states of Europe. (France, a Catholic nation, sided with the Protestants for geopolitical reasons.) Dr. Mabuse probably knows far more about this war than many of us, as King Gustavus II Adolphus and Sweden were in the the midst of it. According to Wiki, "15 to 20 percent" of all Germans died as a result of this war.
The 9/11 attacks, as part of Al Qaeda's holy Jihad against nearly anyone who is not a fanatical Sunni believer. The Iraq War, which Bush initially referred to as a "Crusade."
It all adds up to overwhelming evidence that religion is one of the worst, if not the primary, causes and facilitators of war in history, and certainly the most guilty single human-created cause. Show me half as many major wars that were not caused by, or strongly justified by and enabled by, religion.
I'm certain that more dominant atheists would not do nearly as badly, so long as they maintain the rights of remaining religious.
I can't prove anything about the future, nor can you, but my firm opinion is that we'd have a better one if atheism were more universal.
Marf further opined:quote:
Bullshit! Atheism is the lack of belief in God! No amount of critical thinking is necessary for that! If atheism became the majority accepted worldview, most people would be atheists in the way that most people today are Christians: the would accept it as common knowledge without ever examining their own beliefs.
True, atheism can be active or passive, or anything in between. I should have clarified that I was thinking of atheism in the active sense.
A world with a majority of atheists who don't even need to think much about atheism itself, but simply use good general critical thinking, is exactly what I would love to see as an eventual outcome. Unlike Christians, who arguably should know their own creed, atheism has no such essential doctrine or mythology to memorize.
And with that, I've pretty much exhausted what I had to say on the subject. The rest is a difference of opinion, and you are welcome to your own, Marf.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/06/2007 03:50:03 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 09:36:24 [Permalink]
|
Half wrote: quote:
I challenge anyone to propose a worse human-created evil that has plagued society for thousands of years.
I thought of two off the top of my head: wide acceptance of extreme socio-economic disparity and Nationalism.
The wars of the twentieth century snuffed out the lives of more people than in any other century (largely because there were more people around than in any other century) and the vast number of reasons for those deaths had nothing to do with religion.
We need to be aware that in the past religions were connected with state identity and ethnic identity. This is still true today in many parts of the world. Consider this statement from Hecht's book “Doubt: A History”: quote:
We used to say that ancient Rome was a society of almost no religiosity. Historians explained that the relationship between religion and the state in ancient Rome was so explicit, and so clearly in the service of the state, that the whole thing was more bureaucratic than pious.
Half, just look at this sentence you wrote: quote:
The Reconquista, the incredibly vicious, seven-and-a-half century war in Spain and Portugal by Christian monarchs to recapture Iberia from the Islamic Caliphs of Al-Ándalus.
…to recapture Iberia… That is about one self-identified group taking resources (in this case in the form of land) from a group identified as the other. Religion is not needed for such wars. The saga of British Imperialism had nothing to do with the Church of England, even if some people claimed divine support for their group.
quote:
A world with a majority of atheists who don't even need to think much about atheism itself, but simply use good general critical thinking, is exactly what I would love to see as an eventual outcome. Unlike Christians, who arguably should know their own creed, atheism has no such essential doctrine or mythology to memorize.
My argument is that atheism does not lead to good general critical thinking. Good general critical thinking is a separate animal. I very much support the spread of good critical thinking! And indeed, it is likely that the spread of good critical thinking would probably yield a higher percentage of atheists, but I doubt that the spread of atheism would yield a higher percentage of good critical thinkers. Again, atheism by itself is nothing morally superior to theism by itself.
I really think that if we think of these issues in terms of atheism vs. theism, and of religion itself being a general evil, we are likely to hurt our own cause. I offer as an alternative, a healthy amount of doubt, humility, and critical thinking abilities vs. blind and fanatic faith, and I think that instead of trying to get rid of religion, we should support modern religious institutions which embrace more vague and poetic notions of spirituality, secular values, the life of the individual mind, and pluralism.
quote:
And with that, I've pretty much exhausted what I had to say on the subject. The rest is a difference of opinion, and you are welcome to your own, Marf.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/06/2007 09:38:52 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 15:06:53 [Permalink]
|
Clearly, Marf, if you are so desperate to give religion a pass for the wars it has caused that you would absurdly try to clear it even of responsibility for the Reconquista, then there is nothing I, or anyone else, can do do sway you.
I give up. You win.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/06/2007 15:07:28 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 16:48:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Clearly, Marf, if you are so desperate to give religion a pass for the wars it has caused that you would absurdly try to clear it even of responsibility for the Reconquista, then there is nothing I, or anyone else, can do do sway you.
I give up. You win.
Oh for crap's sake, Half! And here I thought we were politely agreeing to disagree. I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree. That hardly makes me "desperate to give religion a pass" for anything. I do not expect you to agree with me, but I did bother with the debate for the sake of at least offering up a second viable perspective. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 20:30:05 [Permalink]
|
Bullshit.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 21:00:23 [Permalink]
|
What!? What part of my last post was the bullshit part? Is it bullshit that I don't expect you to agree with me? Is it bullshit that my opinion on this matter is just as viable as yours? Or are you re-asserting that my argument is merely some desperate attempt to give religion a pass?
In the case of the latter, I'll say that I'm not some lone nutjob with these opinions. Your mention of the Reconquista made me curious to look up more about it online. From here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista#Cultural_influence under the subtitle Modern Views (with my emphasis in bold):
quote:
Some scholars dispute the idea that "Reconquista" was merely a war of Christians against Muslims (even when they were completely opposed religions). They note that the Muslims had occupied significant parts of the Iberian Peninsula for up to eight centuries, over which time it would have been impossible to isolate both groups.[citation needed] Some noble genealogies show the close relations between Muslims and Christians. The word Reconquista itself should be regarded as an explanation for a long unplanned historical shift or even as Christian propaganda by the new reigning houses to justify their rule as heirdom.
It has also been proposed that the war left the Iberian kingdoms with deep economic crises, leading to the expulsion of the Jews (who had lived in the Iberian Peninsula for over ten centuries) in order to confiscate their funds and property. It should be noted however that the Portuguese Reconquista ended in 1257 and that the Spanish and Portuguese kingdoms were already profiting from their maritime expansion before the Jews were expelled (see Portugal in the period of discoveries and History of Spain).
The Reconquista was a war with long periods of respite between the adversaries, partly for pragmatic reasons, and also due to infighting among the Christian kingdoms of the North spanning over eight centuries. Some populations practised Islam or Christianity as their own religion during these centuries, so the identity of contenders changed over time.
Nevertheless, the expression "Reconquista" continues to be used to designate this historical period by most historians and scholars in Spain and Portugal, as well as internationally.
I'm sorry, Half, but when I compare this to wars which were primarily justified by Nationalism, I fail to see how religious faith or practice is a cause or source of such atrocities. It seems more to me that religion is just one of many ways to identify "us" and "them" and thereby justify killing or enslaving them and taking their stuff. How is my opinion of this so radical, so desperate?
It may shock you to hear this, but this topic is one of those topics where two people, both applying a healthy amount of skepticism and critical analysis, can come to different conclusions. It isn't math. It isn't physics. It's history and sociology.
You said that you thought you had exhausted the subject, which I took as truce (the whole agree to disagree scenario) so I responded to the content of what you wrote and then said "same to you" to that part. If you want to continue the debate, I'd be happy to get more into it. But you didn't continue the debate or politely end it. Instead you dismissed my argument with condescension, saying: quote:
Clearly, Marf, if you are so desperate to give religion a pass for the wars it has caused that you would absurdly try to clear it even of responsibility for the Reconquista, then there is nothing I, or anyone else, can do do sway you.
I give up. You win.
What the hell? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/06/2007 21:00:47 |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2007 : 12:39:59 [Permalink]
|
| Wow! Thanks for the wonderful posts! "Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way for unfathomable reasons does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation," states Keith Parsons.Theists merely put old garbage into new cans that we empty.It is the auto-epistemic rule that allows us to state that after thousands of years theists will never make a valid argument for God, and no argument from ignorance.[I wish someone could take our best posts into a booklet.]We don't posit gremlins for airplane problems and Thor for the weather, and demons for mental problems, so neither should we posit God for any explanation. Natural explanations do not require a personal one! |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 10:04:14 [Permalink]
|
| The words are ignostic and ignosticism coined by the agnostic Rabbi Sherwin Wine and used by A.J,Ayers to deny plausibility not only to theism but also to atheism;but I find it goes with strong atheism.I did not realize I had already started this thread when I started a new one. Sorry! |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:35:03 [Permalink]
|
 Theology is merely to guess about a mystery surrounded by others backed by pure guesswork.Who can show the inchoherency of God's attributes together? When will theists find emprical facts to back up their notions of God? When will they show how He works in the cosmos? When will they ever show that He is meaningful?  When will they show that He, not mere natural causes cure people? When will they show that He is a real explanation and not a vapid pseudo-one? When will they then overcome these two arguments? |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
| Edited by - skeptic griggsy on 06/06/2007 08:36:19 |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 08:44:24 [Permalink]
|
In "Confronting Beleivers,' deist, Miklos Jako paraphrases Michael Martin from his "Atheistm: a Philosophical Justification as follows:'Martin claims God is defined as a spirit, therefore He has no body, and therefore cannot know what it's like to be a human, and therefore cannot be omniscient, and therefore God is a contradictory concept which cannot exist in reality." Indeed! But Jako then avers that God is above logic and therefore any nonsensical formulations about Him are true.
Such a rationalization!
It is just not coherent to say that God has no body and can think. A mind requires a brain.  A mind without a body- disembodied mind -is unthinkable.
Kai Nielsen notes that it is incoherent to aver that God is immannent in the world and transcendent to the world. As a person has to be finite and distinct from other beings, it is also incoherent to posit Him as a person.
Doug Krueger in "Atheism : a Short Introduction notes that the conceptions of different religions show incoherence.
What more incoherence do other atheists here find?
|
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
| Edited by - skeptic griggsy on 02/24/2008 08:58:48 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 10:52:20 [Permalink]
|
Belief without evidence is delusion. Especially when you make decisions based on that belief.
All religion, to one degree or another, is incoherent because of this.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
the ignotist and Occam arguments
