Atheism thread

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

The last paragraph of the post you quoted is describing my divergence from what it means to be an atheist in general. I specifically go beyond typical "lack of belief atheism" as regards human-created gods.

So I guess I don't understand your objection. I don't want to think you intentionally ignored the first two paragraphs, so please, enlighten me.

 

And yes, Ray's right. I do have 100% doubt on that particular issue, but I have it due to an examination of available evidence, which is the exact opposite of faith, which is what it seemed to be you were implying based on your "believer" tag.

 

I don't like to argue too many points at once, contrary to some who leave posts involving screeds of mini-replies. I prefer to focus so as not to lose focus. My apologies if you feel that you went to the bother of writing some text that I didn't take you up on. Hopefully someone else will.

 

Your doubt is 100% on someone else's beliefs (the existence of an Abrahamic god), but it is 0% on your own belief (that there isn't). That's what I mean by lack of doubt. We're talking here about the extent of belief. Are you a strong believer or not in your belief? In your case, you are a perfectly strong believer.

 

[deesidejambo]

10 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Au contraire, he has 100% doubt.

 

Ie he believes?     100% doubt is agnostic.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

This is still a digression from the original issue, so the pedanticism here doesn't matter. If you'd rather describe yourself as agnostic on the existence of fairies, or about a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, you have every right to. That still doesn't change that the burden of proof is on the one positing the existence of something, not on someone who happens to lack a belief in that particular thing.

 

In that case I will digress no more from the original issue and leave you to it. Thanks for the debate.

[redjambo]

Just now, deesidejambo said:

Ie he believes?     100% doubt is agnostic.

 

Indeed. Doubt in a theory or state is the very basis of agnosticism.

 

I don't think we're going to have many takers for this though, as people here seem very set in their beliefs.

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

as people here seem very set in their beliefs.

 

Of that there is no doubt.Or is that doubt actually a belief?

[Justin Z]

13 minutes ago, redjambo said:

Your doubt is 100% on someone else's beliefs (the existence of an Abrahamic god), but it is 0% on your own belief (that there isn't). That's what I mean by lack of doubt. We're talking here about the extent of belief. Are you a strong believer or not in your belief? In your case, you are a perfectly strong believer.

 

I am indeed a perfectly strong believer by that metric. To equate that belief as somehow identical to a belief unfounded in evidence and founded instead on faith is simply wrong. They are not the same thing, wordplay aside.

 

11 minutes ago, redjambo said:

In that case I will digress no more from the original issue and leave you to it. Thanks for the debate.

 

As you wish, thanks to you too. Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy that I linked to is worth a read if you get the chance, and he was a far better thinker than I could ever hope to be.

[deesidejambo]

11 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Of that there is no doubt.Or is that doubt actually a belief?

My brains overheating.

[deesidejambo]

As an aside, and only for those interested in spiritual stuff (and ffs spirituality is not necessarily belief in deities ffs).

 

I did that skit on the mysteries of conscience in the brain and it got a bit of interest (well one person anyway!).

 

There is another part of the spiritual brain that is even less understood - hope.    

 

Hope is that wierd feeling you get for an outcome that is in your favour but can no longer control.        Like conscience, it can sit quietly in your brain for a long time then only get activated when needed, either consciously or not.  And also like conscience, it can conflict with the logical brain as follows..............

 

I dont wish this on anyone, but anyone who has had a family crisis, like a dying child or partner, will know the feeling of helplessness as the situation unfolds - all that is left is "hope".   No surprise there.     But heres where is impinges on the deity thing - studies show that even strong atheists (not all of them) when confronted with their own dying child, sometimes revert to prayer, i.e. their hope switches on a part of the brain that previously they discounted, or even ridiculed in others.  They suddenly "believe".     That is fine - its maybe not a real belief in a deity, but it is often done automatically in times of severe desperate need.    Like I said I dont wish that to happen to any fellow KBers, but would suggest to the er "atheist community" that somewhere inside them is a spiritual element that may end up with you praying in crisis. 

 

When hope starts to supersede the logical brain -trouble comes - gamblers.    Many gamblers know the odds are against them in the long-term.       But even with the knowledge that the odds are against them, their hope spirituality kicks the logic brain in the napper and the person bets and bets and bets, ultimately leading to disaster.

 

So beware hope. 

 

Ach I'm pishing on a bit but the spiritual brain is a mysterious thing and has secrets that keep us human.  Well mine is anyway.  Or maybe not.

 

 

[lauriesrank]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

I don't like to argue too many points at once, contrary to some who leave posts involving screeds of mini-replies. I prefer to focus so as not to lose focus. My apologies if you feel that you went to the bother of writing some text that I didn't take you up on. Hopefully someone else will.

 

Your doubt is 100% on someone else's beliefs (the existence of an Abrahamic god), but it is 0% on your own belief (that there isn't). That's what I mean by lack of doubt. We're talking here about the extent of belief. Are you a strong believer or not in your belief? In your case, you are a perfectly strong believer.

 

You know, I am not allowed to get angry cause of mental health, however, this has wound me up something chronic, semantics aside, it is impossible to believe in something that you believe doesn't exist, fact, how on Earth can you perpetuate a fallacy so gross in its use?  You don't believe in a god, therefore you believe???? WTF??  Read that back to yourself and realise how ridiculous it really sounds.

[deesidejambo]

2 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

There is simply not enough facepalm on the planet or indeed one good enough to give justice to the existence of religion and the belief in their sky fairies.  My incredulity over these billions of zombies and robots is such that I am convinced one day Jeremy Beadle will jump out at me and say “Gotcha”.

Beadle is dead.     So you believe in reincarnation than?

[i8hibsh]

3 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Beadle is dead.     So you believe in reincarnation than?

 

 

I believe in whatever a book of bullshit, a wee man in a stupid robe and a sky fairy tell me damn it!

[Zerothehero]

I'm an atheist. I believed as a kid but grew out of it when my millions of excited questions all ended with very unsatisfactory answers.

 

I get why folk like to believe and wouldn't ever want to deny someone that - whatever helps you get through the day is all good. But there's a limit to that.

 

Everyone should be entitled to believe and be whatever they want, until it starts to interfere with someone else.

 

The second your religion starts affecting what I can watch on tv, what my tax money is spent On, who can get an abortion.... then it becomes fair game.

 

At that point it's time for plain speaking, until anyone can come up with a convincing reason that your particular brand of religion deserves more respect than all the others, and indeed what scientific enquiry presents, it doesn't deserve to be treated as a reasonable thing. It's not reasonable by definition.

 

And on scientific enquiry... here's the big thing. The bible and adherents can claim whatever they want but can't back any of it up. Like none of it.

 

Anyone in the world is free to make a scientific paper. To have it reviewed and questioned, testing it's integrity. That's the difference. Religion wants to be held to a different standard, one that overrules reason and simple logic.

 

So in summary after a meandering rant, enjoy your Religion, feel good that you're going to heaven - I'm jealous of that. But don't expect me to accept it at face value. That's an insult.

[LesJambes]

Responding to @Ugly American
 

Quote

 

First thing, general post, I noticed recently that the OP created this thread as a place to share memes, not to get into a long argument about atheism.  I am enjoying the discussion, but if the atheists on this thread would rather I left it alone, I'll drop it and wander over to another thread.  Right, now...

 

Theists can debate atheism if they want, it's to be expected. Just bear in mind it's unlikely we will solve the question of there being any deities, and nobody is likely to change their minds on the issue here. No matter how many essays we produce I'm sure by the end we'll both just be pissed off, and of exactly the same beliefs we started with. I don't think it likely I will accept Jesus as god/ the son of god because China was oppressive or Christopher Hitchens didn't like Saddam Hussein.

Quote

 

Right, and Christianity at its absolute most core precepts says love your enemy, turn the other cheek, pray for those who persecute you. Don't you see that the same mistake Christians (and others) have made repeatedly is the same one that Hitchens made, which is that it doesn't matter how noble the values you want to spread are, once you resort to bombs, invasion, and torture of people who were minding their own business in order to spread them, you've become evil?

 

So was it also evil to stop Germany invading Poland, or to stop Iraq itself from invading Kuwait? I don't mind a little hyperbole, but 'minding their own business' is the last term I'd use for the Baathist regime. They persecuted the Shias, the Arab minority, the Kurds (remember the aforementioned genocide), the Assyrian Christians, Yezidis, they went to war with Iran, they tried to invade Kuwait (for oil). I've talked to several Iraqi ex-Muslims who say in the larger scheme of things they are glad Saddam was ousted, describing his regime like living in Orwell's 1984. Now despite some sectarian religious terrorism from Shias and Sunnis, things are slowly improving.

Quote

 

Only because you say you'd rather avoid that debate, I'll simply say I disagree with your assessment of both the causes of the situation and the current state of affairs. More to the point, while I am emphatically not saying somehow it's the fault of atheists, I'm saying that Operation Cast Lead was morally indefensible, and yet Harris repeatedly defended it on the grounds that Islam was an evil, backwards religion. Which is a very prominent atheist supporting military action based on religious intolerance, hence, militant atheism.

 

So two sides butcher each other on almost a daily basis, but you decide to focus on some probably out of context quote of one atheist defending the actions of one side? I think you understand why that selective outrage isn't a condemnation of atheism as whole. It's like seeing two rednecks fighting, and one northern spectator says 'punch him in the ribs', and you decide to direct your ire at this one spectator, saying 'see look, all northern people are violent'.

Quote

Tibet was neither a theocratic dictatorship nor a utopian paradise. It was a complex country with its own problems, which IMO were demonstrably made worse by the invasion of Communist China, which DID in fact engage in state atheism. And again, I am not saying all atheists must answer for the crimes of Chinese Maoists, simply that people who are repressive, militant, or murderous explicitly in the name of anti-theism DO exist. This is a rebuttal to the oft-repeated claim, including in this thread and often elsewhere on JKB, that without religion these kinds of conflicts wouldn't exist, or that no atheist ever starts a war for religious reasons.

The key word there is COMMUNIST. Atheism is peripheral to Communism, you should ask yourself why you need to point to Communist regimes to attack atheism, whereas I can very easily point to theistic regimes which have been violent solely in the name of their religion. And again in China so long as any religion doesn't challenge the State's authority, they are left to do their thing. There are Buddhist Temples, Mosques, Churches etc in China, how do you explain their presence in this militantly anti-theist dictatorship? And btw anti-theism is not the same as atheism. If your whole argument is based on people supposedly saying without religion no conflict would exist, then you can relax, because nobody here is saying that. There will always be conflicts over resources, poilitical ideologies, imperialism, nationalism etc.

Quote

 

While it seems like your rules are intended to be reducto ad absurdum, being sincere, here are the rules that I would happily agree to follow when criticizing atheists:

 - The existence of "bad atheism" cannot be used as a criticism against all atheists. It can only be used to prove that atheism can sometimes be bad.

 

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods, if you want to simplify everything into good and bad that's fine, but take it as a whole. Would you say there's good and bad lack of belief in ghosts, fairies, or bigfoot?
 

Quote

 - The absence of theism is neither wholly irrelevant nor can it to be assumed to be causal for all actions of political movements which align themselves with atheism. Any claim to align them or disalign them in a specific instance should be supported with specific claims or evidence.

I can't think of any example where there is no theism, there has never been a purely atheist state to my knowledge. Your best example has been China, where Folk Religions, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and Islam have all existed continuously throughout the cultural revolution, only hampered when they didn't acquiesce to the State, as is the case in all theocratic regimes too. And yes evidence is always good, but surprising for someone who wider position is based on faith.
 

Quote

 - Any criticism of atheist beliefs, practices, political actions, or words should make at least a baseline effort to both 1) recognize that not all atheists are atheists in the same way and 2) make a basic effort to demonstrate that someone, somewhere actually believes that.

Disagree entirely. Atheists will vary widely in their social, political, economic, philosophical and other views, but in regards to atheism, ie the lack of belief in a god or gods, we are all the same. The only possible distinction lies between gnostic and agnostic atheists. Of which I am the latter btw. And if any atheist attempts to attach further criteria to atheism, for instance the Atheism + 'movement', I will tell them the same thing.

Quote

A kind of criticism of atheists that would be prohibited under these rules would be the rant that the idiot from the TV series Duck Dynasty went on about atheists a few years ago, and how you can't trust an atheists to not murder you because being atheist means you have no morals. 

I think the best example of that facetious argument was the Muslim YouTuber who said atheists would drink their dads sperm because they have no moral code. First of all the Quran doesn't prohibit drinking your fathers sperm, so go right ahead second he is basically admitting he'd have no personal issue with drinking his dads sperm, and the only thing stopping him is some ancient book from a guy in a cave who heard voices.

Quote

I'm at a loss for how many times I have to type, "atheists should absolutely criticize Christianity, just please be specific" before people will believe me that I'm not telling atheists not to criticize Christianity. The same "rules" should apply for everyone.

Well again I'll say what I want, and you are free to respond as you like. But okay, let's talk specifically about Noah's Ark. How did they fit two or more of every species into that boat, how did they keep them alive, and why is there no paleontological evidence of a global flood? Or if you take the 'it's all a metaphor' cop out why did people believe it as fact for so long, why wasn't it made clearer it was simply a myth?

Quote

As far as demanding respect goes, well, let me put it this way. I think criticism is good. I have learned from a lot of atheist (and other) critics of Christianity. But there's only so much stupid shit that I can read or hear before I say, "that's a load of shite." I suppose I think there's a lot of good things to talk about on this topic, and I get annoyed when it just devolves into stupid name calling and straw men.

Well let's clear up some strawmen on the other side too then. Nobody here is saying without religion there would be no war. Nobody is saying all atheists are good, or anything like that. Nobody so far as I can see is advocating State Atheism, lack of religion in schools isn't the same thing as enforced atheism for example. Most atheists want to cut formal ties between government and church, but that doesn't mean an individual politician, or even a member of a religious organisation cannot also be a member of parliament. RE in a religious school means years of studying dubious texts, RE in a state atheist school would simply mean 'there's no god. End of class'. But we're not even advocating that. We're simply saying teach children ABOUT religion (and lack thereof), not indoctrinate them into it. How do you feel about kids in some European countries being taken into Mosques and being made to worship Allah, as part of their 'religious education' for example? This is why theists should also embrace secularism, because unless you happen to have the dominant religion, and are 100% in line with the mainstream in that religion, then your religious rights can be infringed too. Secularism is the fairest way for all faiths and none.

Quote

Again, that post was responding to a specific meme. Of course I don't want to defend any of those practices. Would you like to answer for every act of domestic abuse committed by atheists? Of course not, and I won't expect you to.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, there is no atheist bible, let alone one that condones domestic abuse. However those examples are practises which have existed or still do in many different religious traditions. If you want to defend theism as a whole, or take credit for any good that any of them do, you also have to take responsibility for the bad things they advocate. If a Buddhist murders someone that's not the fault of Buddhism, which specifically says you shouldn't kill anything, even an insect. If a Muslim kills someone to get into paradise though, that's the fault of the religion, or at least the schools of jurisprudence that condone it. Do you understand the difference?

Quote

You are entirely correct that "Western" was the wrong word to use here. "Indo-European" is still probably not quite right in terms of the breadth of fit for the word "religion" but is much closer to it than "western." As I mentioned somewhere up there, it's a poor fit for many African, East Asian, and other practices which are spiritual in nature but have very different structures and societal influence than what we think of as "religion." But "Western" is wrong -- my error.

I think most people in the west understand religion as god + prophet/ messiah. But don't dismiss rich philosophical traditions of Africa and Asia just because they don't have some omnipotent skydaddy. Religion actually benefits from the inclusion of arguably more benign practises like Taoism. To me being a religion isn't exactly a lofty attribute. I could say bob is god, and presto, it's a religion!

Quote

A fair point, and I'll try to expand. There's multiple definitions of humanism that are perfectly valid,  some of which I would fully accept myself -- the distinction I'm making here is based on how one answers the question, "to whom shall we turn to in times of turmoil and hopelessness?" The humanist is the one who answers, "we must turn to our fellow humanity." To me, if that's the answer, it makes me want to go stick my head in the oven it's so depressing.

I agree, and that's one of the drawbacks of being an atheist too. If I see a famine or flood destroying people's lives, killing their children, I feel deeply guilty that I don't have money to send, or to go there to help them. Previously as a theist I could simply pray and absolve myself of guilt, feeling like I'd done something to help. Or otherwise just shake my head and say to myself it must be part of some greater plan, or perhaps their own karma for past life transgressions. Or simply blame it on the handy scapegoat the devil. Either way, now to absolve that guilt I actually have to do something palpable, and while it may seem depressing it can also be empowering, the feeling you've done something tangible to help, even if only a little.

Quote

 

I have to make side notes here that there's considerable text in the Bible about praying not being enough and that you're supposed to also do something to help people, and also that in many instances "mysterious ways" is an attempt to get a handle on the incomprehensible and unimaginable. But those are side points.

 

Yes, and on the flipside in some religions they command followers to punish blasphemers. This has always seemed ridiculous to me, the idea that an all-powerful being has it's feelings hurt, and needs their followers to punish those responsible. As if an omnipotent being can't even send down a lightning bolt or something. This is actually one of those things that convinced me that religion is man made. I should specify it gave me 99.9999% certainty, not absolute proof.

Quote

This is a whole other matter and as you say this is long enough already, but I profoundly object to folks like Carl Sagan who dismissed religious beliefs as nothing more than pre-scientific explanations. (Don't get me wrong I loved Cosmos.) It's an act of supreme hubris to think that for millennia humans were stupid brutes who believed the most facile fairy tales and we've just recently somehow woken up to the fact that it was all wool pulled over our eyes. But I realize that's effectively what most atheists think, and taking that apart mean I have to get into STS and Latour and modes of existence and if you think THIS is going long...

Atheism isn't that recent a phenomena, Ancient Greek philosophers were atheist long before the birth of Jesus for example. You could say that people were always atheists in regards to other tribes beliefs and gods maybe. What's clear is that animals don't have religion, so at some point humans developed religion, and at some point after that a human didn't accept that claim, and thus became the first atheist. I didn't say people were stupid, again they simply lacked any better explanation. It only really speaks to their credulity when they accept a superstitious claim when given evidence to the contrary. For example when people saw mirages in the desert, without understanding light and vision and psychology they can easily be forgiven for thinking they had a vision, however now we can understand these things better, and also phenomena like schizophrenia, epilepsy etc and explain all these illusions far better.

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, lauriesrank said:

You know, I am not allowed to get angry cause of mental health, however, this has wound me up something chronic, semantics aside, it is impossible to believe in something that you believe doesn't exist, fact, how on Earth can you perpetuate a fallacy so gross in its use?  You don't believe in a god, therefore you believe???? WTF??  Read that back to yourself and realise how ridiculous it really sounds.

 

Man, that is scary that this has made you so angry. I apologise for engendering that reaction in you, that was not my intention.

 

Anyway, you've misunderstood me. I didn't say that you can believe in something that you don't believe in. It all comes down to how we define belief. I was making the point that you can believe that something doesn't exist in the same way that you can believe that something does exist. It's belief in a state, whether that state consists of something existing or something not existing. In the end, your belief in anything comes down to how agnostic you are about the subject, how much you firmly believe in what you believe, either way. Others countered my argument, and that's fair enough, I'm not here to change other people's opinions, I'm here to express mine.

 

I bowed out earlier, but only came back to apologise for you being wound up and to explain what I was arguing. If it makes you feel better I will cede this discussion entirely to you, but in any case, my reasons for bowing out are still valid and I do so again. Keep up the interesting debate on this subject.

[Ulysses]

21 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Ooft. There's nothing we can speak of, be it God or scientific fact, that isn't at some level partially a construct -- this is an insight that multiple religious/spiritual traditions around the world have come to, not to mention Kant. Wisdom, compassion, forgiveness, peace aren't God themselves, they are aspects which allows us to reach, ever so slightly, towards the infinite that we refer to as God. The human qualities themselves are NOT God, they are human strivings towards God, but they are some of our best ways of understanding God.

 

Side nitpick that this isn't strictly true -- there are plenty of gods in history that weren't the most powerful forces in the universe. But yes, as a Christian, it's a fair enough approximation to say I hold that belief for the God I worship.

 

Let me try to rephrase this -- my belief is that when we act in selfish and destructive ways, we act in ways that support and reify very small and very finite things. When we act in ways that are holy, those actions tap into something more eternal.

 

Yes, I fully realize that this is not a strictly rational belief. I'll simply say I find the universe far too depressing and oppressive a place to live in without it.

 

None of that stuff has anything to do with what I posted, nor has it any logical connection with the points you made in your previous post to which I was responding.

 

In essence, what you're saying is that you have a set of constructs that give you comfort and you like them.

 

What I'm saying to you is that it's great that you have that comfort.  The difference between us is that you aren't giving yourself the credit you deserve for that, while I am.

[Ulysses]

11 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

You can't prove that there is a God, you can't prove that there is not one. If you believe either case then you are believing a certain state to be true without proof.

 

I've already mentioned to someone else that this is a fallacious equivalence.  There is no evidence for the existence of gods, but there is evidence to show how gods can be made up and then passed down the generations.  The probability that gods are made up is greater than the probability that they aren't, and by quite a margin.  Therefore if you believe one case you are doing so with no evidence, but if you believe the other you aren't.

[Unknown user]

[LesJambes]

Don't forget the mixed fabrics! The creator of the entire universe, every asteroid, planet, moon, every star system, galaxy in all their magnificence really doesn't like those mixed fabrics!

[Ray Gin]

 

 

 

  

[151]

15 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

 

  

 

 

[LesJambes]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

 

  

 

Holy shit! Literally!
Have you seen Veedu Vidz? He does a hilarious Zakir Naik impersonation

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by LesJambes

[Ray Gin]

 I've never actually heard this idiot speak so not sure if that impression is any good or not.

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Ray Gin

[LesJambes]

15 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 I've never actually heard this idiot speak so not sure if that impression is any good or not.

 

I had some annoying preachy Muslim convert friends a few years ago, and they always played me his videos, he's hugely popular in the Muslim World. His party trick is talking about any given issue (usually some problem in the West), then reciting some part of the Quran (he has it memorized) and making tenuous links between scientific discoveries and Quranic verses.

Edited March 16, 2018 by LesJambes

[LesJambes]

This may interest some, a weekly show by atheists who frequent Speakers Corner. Might be interesting this weekend as Tommy Robinson will be debating Mohammed Hijab. I don't tend to agree with Tommy about everything, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by LesJambes

[Justin Z]

This would be more topical to the Hawking or Graham threads, but Hawking was mentioned in here, and it's funny:

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 3/16/2018 at 11:04, Ray Gin said:

 

 

 

  

 

See, that's just being silly. Apparently things like laying the baseline for modern mathematics and restoring the works of Aristotle to Europe isn't enough for some folks, Islam has to do more.

 

Well, okay, fortunately there's a billion of them and that includes people like this. 

[Unknown user]

19 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

See, that's just being silly. Apparently things like laying the baseline for modern mathematics and restoring the works of Aristotle to Europe isn't enough for some folks, Islam has to do more.

 

Well, okay, fortunately there's a billion of them and that includes people like this. 

Islam hasn't done anything, Islam is a faith system based on a god that doesn't exist. There may be a billion people that follow that faith but their accomplishments are their own and their religion is exactly the same as the others - founded in lies.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 3/15/2018 at 11:28, LesJambes said:

So was it also evil to stop Germany invading Poland, or to stop Iraq itself from invading Kuwait? I don't mind a little hyperbole, but 'minding their own business' is the last term I'd use for the Baathist regime. They persecuted the Shias, the Arab minority, the Kurds (remember the aforementioned genocide), the Assyrian Christians, Yezidis, they went to war with Iran, they tried to invade Kuwait (for oil). I've talked to several Iraqi ex-Muslims who say in the larger scheme of things they are glad Saddam was ousted, describing his regime like living in Orwell's 1984. Now despite some sectarian religious terrorism from Shias and Sunnis, things are slowly improving.

 

Our back-and-forths have gotten a bit out of hand, so I'm cutting and replying to sections as I have time. This one will deal with the responses regarding prominent atheist critics of religion and their attendant militarism.

 

At no point did I say Saddam was a nice guy or that I miss him, but in removing him we've unleashed untold bloodshed in the region and our impossibly badly botched handling of the aftermath (including the woefully misguided de-Baathification policies, particularly the disbanding of the Iraqi Army) effectively created ISIS. I have several Kuwaiti friends and they all regard the 1990 Gulf War as an act of liberation from a rapacious regime. At least Papa Bush had the decency to respect international law and, yanno, not commit war crimes.

 

But if you really want to go to bat and back up Hitchens' misguided, to-his-death-bed support for the 2003 invasion, on your own head be it.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 11:28, LesJambes said:

So two sides butcher each other on almost a daily basis, but you decide to focus on some probably out of context quote of one atheist defending the actions of one side? I think you understand why that selective outrage isn't a condemnation of atheism as whole. It's like seeing two rednecks fighting, and one northern spectator says 'punch him in the ribs', and you decide to direct your ire at this one spectator, saying 'see look, all northern people are violent'.

 

See, when I was growing up we had a set of cheap (literally) grocery store encyclopedias sitting over in a bookshelf. They weren't that good, but whenever we had a question for our parents on something, they always told us to "go look it up first." I suppose that's why it bugs me that so many people on here.

 

You say it's just an "out of context quote" and then go on some bizarre classist tangent about a northerner. Um, no. Harris did an entire podcast on his support for Israel then wrote multiple columns and did more interviews on the topic. He has a huge record of text. You could have found this easily with a simple Google search, as I suggested before. But since we're here, here's an article by an atheist former Muslim absolutely excoriating Harris' bullshit and militarism and he brings receipts. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered/ 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

11 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Islam hasn't done anything, Islam is a faith system based on a god that doesn't exist. There may be a billion people that follow that faith but their accomplishments are their own and their religion is exactly the same as the others - founded in lies.

 

You know I'm trying to go at this with good faith but the dodging and weaving here is getting really tiresome.

 

Much of the foundation of modern mathematics and centuries of scholarship on the works of Aristotle, that were subsequently translated from Arabic to Italian and German thus largely kicking off the Renaissance, was conducted under the auspices of the Ottoman Caliphate, a broad union of governments and principalities that was tied together under the political, moral, intellectual, and religious tenants of Islam. While the Caliphate was broadly religiously tolerant, with Christian, Jewish, and smaller sects existing and thriving within its borders, the government was absolutely explicitly Islamic.

 

Now, apparently when an entire ****ing government, culture, university system, library system, printing system, and more are founded titularly and thoroughly on a complex set of religious values that include BUT GO FAR BEYOND (sheesh!) the basic principle of monotheism, Islam has nothing to do with it but it's just some people doing a thing.

 

On the other hand, take one billionaire who's a rogue from most established orders of Islam who manages to convince 20 people to hijack some planes, and it's the fault of the entire religion. And one dumb **** says some dumb thing and Ray Gin makes a meme out of it and thinks he's made some deep point about Islam and scholarship.

 

Can you not see how ridiculous that is?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 3/16/2018 at 21:55, Justin Z said:

This would be more topical to the Hawking or Graham threads, but Hawking was mentioned in here, and it's funny:

 

 

I am 100% here for any trolling of Franklin Graham. A+. Absolute shitebag.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 3/15/2018 at 11:28, LesJambes said:

Theists can debate atheism if they want, it's to be expected. Just bear in mind it's unlikely we will solve the question of there being any deities, and nobody is likely to change their minds on the issue here. No matter how many essays we produce I'm sure by the end we'll both just be pissed off, and of exactly the same beliefs we started with. I don't think it likely I will accept Jesus as god/ the son of god because China was oppressive or Christopher Hitchens didn't like Saddam Hussein.

 

It's a damned good thing I'm not trying to convert anyone here then, huh? If Christianity is going to offer anything to any atheist on this thread, it's not going to be some ******* sitting in Virginia typing on his keyboard that changes your mind, I guarantee that. It will be because there's something inside you that feels called to it. If anyone actually feels that and thinks maybe aformentioned Richmond-based ******* could do help with the matter, well hell, DM me and I'll do what I can. No, we're talking about clarifying and debating common atheist critiques of religion, theism, faith, belief, prayer, and practice, as well as claims to atheist exceptionalism on other points.

 

And because the point keeps getting missed, religion is empirically far more than simple theism and cannot be reduced to it, a point that atheists seem determined to misunderstand but which is supported by evidence that fills multiple libraries.

 

Quote

The key word there is COMMUNIST. Atheism is peripheral to Communism, you should ask yourself why you need to point to Communist regimes to attack atheism, whereas I can very easily point to theistic regimes which have been violent solely in the name of their religion. And again in China so long as any religion doesn't challenge the State's authority, they are left to do their thing. There are Buddhist Temples, Mosques, Churches etc in China, how do you explain their presence in this militantly anti-theist dictatorship? And btw anti-theism is not the same as atheism.

 

I rather thought it was common knowledge that critique of religion was a fairly non-trivial part of Marxist Communism and was further accentuated under Maoist Communism. It's not remotely incidental or orthogonal to Marx's historical materialism or Mao's radical agrarianism.

 

Quote

If your whole argument is based on people supposedly saying without religion no conflict would exist, then you can relax, because nobody here is saying that. There will always be conflicts over resources, poilitical ideologies, imperialism, nationalism etc.

 

That point has not yet been articulated as such on this thread but has been said almost word-for-word in other threads by multiple people on this board. Now that he's posted here I can say that a few years back i8hibsh challenged me to name a war that wasn't driven by religion. I got tired after 20 and quit but could have kept going. I'm glad you're not saying it, that makes this easier, but to say "nobody here is saying that" is empirically false.

 

Quote

I can't think of any example where there is no theism, there has never been a purely atheist state to my knowledge. Your best example has been China, where Folk Religions, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and Islam have all existed continuously throughout the cultural revolution, only hampered when they didn't acquiesce to the State, as is the case in all theocratic regimes too.

 

I refer you to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, a regime under which all religion was outlawed and religious leaders were killed en masse. It's the purest one, but the ban on religion was absolute.

 

However your phrase, "as is the case in all theocratic regimes" is effectively ceding my point -- that religion is not a requirement for engaging in religious repression. Repressive regimes are bad -- the degree to which they are theocratic is important only so far as it justifies the repression. It's the degree of repression which is important, not the presence or absence of religious justification for it.

 

Quote

And yes evidence is always good, but surprising for someone who wider position is based on faith.

 

A formal argument:

 

Premise: all religious people argue from a wider position based solely in faith

- People who base their position solely in faith do not make a call to evidence to support the argument.

- Ugly American is a religious person

- Ugly American routinely makes calls to evidence to support his arguments

 

Now this would seem a logical contradiction. What would a logician then say about the premise?

 

Quote

Well again I'll say what I want, and you are free to respond as you like. But okay, let's talk specifically about Noah's Ark. How did they fit two or more of every species into that boat, how did they keep them alive, and why is there no paleontological evidence of a global flood? Or if you take the 'it's all a metaphor' cop out why did people believe it as fact for so long, why wasn't it made clearer it was simply a myth?

 

Noah's Ark is very clearly a myth included in Genesis as a kind of historical background to the stories of the Patriarchs in order to make a theological point, as is obvious to most Christians and is understood as such by all but Biblical literalists, who are a small minority of Christians. It is patently obvious to Biblical scholars that it is myth. The adherence to Biblical literalism is a feature of religious movements with their origins in post-Enlightenment time and emerge from a very specific set of political and theological constraints that require such adherence. This is a fun rabbit hole to go down but it gets away from the topic of the thread.

 

Quote

Well let's clear up some strawmen on the other side too then. Nobody here is saying without religion there would be no war. Nobody is saying all atheists are good, or anything like that. Nobody so far as I can see is advocating State Atheism, lack of religion in schools isn't the same thing as enforced atheism for example. Most atheists want to cut formal ties between government and church, but that doesn't mean an individual politician, or even a member of a religious organisation cannot also be a member of parliament. RE in a religious school means years of studying dubious texts, RE in a state atheist school would simply mean 'there's no god. End of class'. But we're not even advocating that. We're simply saying teach children ABOUT religion (and lack thereof), not indoctrinate them into it. How do you feel about kids in some European countries being taken into Mosques and being made to worship Allah, as part of their 'religious education' for example? This is why theists should also embrace secularism, because unless you happen to have the dominant religion, and are 100% in line with the mainstream in that religion, then your religious rights can be infringed too. Secularism is the fairest way for all faiths and none.

 

Setting aside the "no religion=no war" point which I addressed above (yes, people are saying that, just not yet on this thread).

 

This thread seems to be a lot of UK-based atheists arguing against religion almost exclusively as you know it in the UK. You say "Most atheists want to cut formal ties between government and church," and I would remind you that we've been doing that in the US since roughly 1788, and actually longer here in Virginia. It was actually placed there largely at the insistence of religious people who wanted state secularism as insurance against religious persecution. (Yes, some Christians are trying to remove those protections or somehow argue that they aren't there, but many others of us are fighting them tooth and nail to keep it them there.)

 

In that regard, we are absolutely allies (inasmuch as I have any influence on UK politics, which is to say, effectively zero), and oddly enough, you'll actually find that you're even allies with fundamentalists such as the Free Church, with whom I have extremely extensive theological disagreements but who have been opposing state involvement in religion for their entire denominational existence.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Ugly American
Cutting some arguments to include in later post

[Ray Gin]

5 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

See, that's just being silly. Apparently things like laying the baseline for modern mathematics and restoring the works of Aristotle to Europe isn't enough for some folks, Islam has to do more.

 

Well, okay, fortunately there's a billion of them and that includes people like this. 

 

What's that got to do with the idiotic views of those I posted above?

[Ray Gin]

4 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 one dumb **** says some dumb thing and Ray Gin makes a meme out of it and thinks he's made some deep point about Islam and scholarship.

 

Can you not see how ridiculous that is?

 

I did no such thing, you're the one being ridiculous here.

[Unknown user]

4 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

You know I'm trying to go at this with good faith but the dodging and weaving here is getting really tiresome.

 

Much of the foundation of modern mathematics and centuries of scholarship on the works of Aristotle, that were subsequently translated from Arabic to Italian and German thus largely kicking off the Renaissance, was conducted under the auspices of the Ottoman Caliphate, a broad union of governments and principalities that was tied together under the political, moral, intellectual, and religious tenants of Islam. While the Caliphate was broadly religiously tolerant, with Christian, Jewish, and smaller sects existing and thriving within its borders, the government was absolutely explicitly Islamic.

 

Now, apparently when an entire ****ing government, culture, university system, library system, printing system, and more are founded titularly and thoroughly on a complex set of religious values that include BUT GO FAR BEYOND (sheesh!) the basic principle of monotheism, Islam has nothing to do with it but it's just some people doing a thing.

 

On the other hand, take one billionaire who's a rogue from most established orders of Islam who manages to convince 20 people to hijack some planes, and it's the fault of the entire religion. And one dumb **** says some dumb thing and Ray Gin makes a meme out of it and thinks he's made some deep point about Islam and scholarship.

 

Can you not see how ridiculous that is?

Sorry if you find it tiresome, but no one's making you read or post. 

I'm not blaming islam for anything and I'm not crediting islam with anything. I'm not dodging and weaving, I'm sticking to the topic of the thread - this is a thread about atheism, not whether muslims are good guys or not. In reality you're the one ducking and diving, trying to make the conversation about anything other then the uncomfortable truth.

 

You can say atheists miss the point, but the truth is that atheists stick to the point and don't get distracted by whatever you think you're proving.

[XB52]

6 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

You know I'm trying to go at this with good faith but the dodging and weaving here is getting really tiresome.

 

Much of the foundation of modern mathematics and centuries of scholarship on the works of Aristotle, that were subsequently translated from Arabic to Italian and German thus largely kicking off the Renaissance, was conducted under the auspices of the Ottoman Caliphate, a broad union of governments and principalities that was tied together under the political, moral, intellectual, and religious tenants of Islam. While the Caliphate was broadly religiously tolerant, with Christian, Jewish, and smaller sects existing and thriving within its borders, the government was absolutely explicitly Islamic.

 

Now, apparently when an entire ****ing government, culture, university system, library system, printing system, and more are founded titularly and thoroughly on a complex set of religious values that include BUT GO FAR BEYOND (sheesh!) the basic principle of monotheism, Islam has nothing to do with it but it's just some people doing a thing.

 

On the other hand, take one billionaire who's a rogue from most established orders of Islam who manages to convince 20 people to hijack some planes, and it's the fault of the entire religion. And one dumb **** says some dumb thing and Ray Gin makes a meme out of it and thinks he's made some deep point about Islam and scholarship.

 

Can you not see how ridiculous that is?

Well said. Some people only want to see one side. 

[Ray Gin]

Going back to the point above from our American friend:

 

The meme that I posted (I didn't make it) features comments from Islamic religious scholars making ridiculous claims based on some interpretation of what they read in the Quran. The Professor posted as a counter example is hardly comparable. She is not a religious scholar and the research she is doing is hardly a result of what she has read in the Quran. She is contributing despite her religion, not because of it. Unless of course you can find me some quotes in the Quran that encourage women to research microbiology. Admittedly I haven't read it.

 

I note she actually moved to a secular country to carry out her studies.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Ray Gin

[Unknown user]

36 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Well said. Some people only want to see one side. 

If this was a "What have the Romans ever done for us?" thread I'd agree, but it isn't.

[scott herbertson]

54 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Going back to the point above from our American friend:

 

The meme that I posted (I didn't make it) features comments from Islamic religious scholars making ridiculous claims based on some interpretation of what they read in the Quran. The Professor posted as a counter example is hardly comparable. She is not a religious scholar and the research she is doing is hardly a result of what she has read in the Quran. She is contributing despite her religion, not because of it. Unless of course you can find me some quotes in the Quran that encourage women to research microbiology. Admittedly I haven't read it.

 

I note she actually moved to a secular country to carry out her studies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plenty of female muslim scientists around, taking their inspiration from the Quran

 

https://500womenscientists.org/updates/2017/4/17/meet-a-scientist

[XB52]

I get a hatred of the things that have been carried out in the name of religion but don't get the seeming hatred or at least ridicule of those who are religious. I am a Christian and that is my belief. I have many friends who are agnostic atheist/Christians/Muslims and I know quite a few of the same who are nuggets. I don't preach to anyone about faith and I don't expect to be preached to about sky fairies. 

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Plenty of female muslim scientists around, taking their inspiration from the Quran

 

https://500womenscientists.org/updates/2017/4/17/meet-a-scientist

 

Are they indeed? Which passages in the Quran in particular are they taking this inspiration for scientific research from? I'd be interested in reading them.

 

If it does indeed encourage such a thing then it's got one-up over Christianity.

 

[Ray Gin]

11 minutes ago, XB52 said:

 I don't preach to anyone about faith and I don't expect to be preached to about sky fairies. 

 

Fair enough, perhaps it would be a good idea to avoid threads about atheism then.

[XB52]

3 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Fair enough, perhaps it would be a good idea to avoid threads about atheism then.

Why? You can be an atheist without being a dickhead about people who are religious

[Ray Gin]

Just now, XB52 said:

Why? You can be an atheist without being a dickhead about people who are religious

 

Indeed you can. That wasn't your original complaint.

[Sidelight]

3 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Are they indeed? Which passages in the Quran in particular are they taking this inspiration for scientific research from? I'd be interested in reading them.

 

If it does indeed encourage such a thing then it's got one-up over Christianity.

 

 

Muslim countries have fewer than 10 scientists, engineers, and technicians for every 1,000 people, compared with the world average of 40, and 140 for the developed world. These figures are a few years old but not that much has changed in recent years.

However that’s not what I came to say.

I understand that you completely reject the hypothesis of a Creator God.

You are of course entitled to hold that view and make comment to support your world view.

Now what does concern me is this, the idea that those who read UA’s many comments would believe that they are aligned with scripture, God’s Word, when they are not.

Yes, he is entitled to his view as we all are, but that is exactly what it is, his view.

A man made cultural construct, where God’s Word is bent and moulded to fit his tolerant all things to all men liberal agenda. Remove what you don’t like and brand the bizarre and hard to believe as myths and fables.

God’s Word never changes, you can deny it as a work of fiction as of course you do. But if it is indeed the Word of the Transcendent Holy Creator God, as I completely believe, it does not change. The same yesterday, today and forever.

To take God’s Word and change its meaning to suit the cultural environment of the day is common place within the church. Why?

In an effort to stem falling church attendance, and in the thought to remain relevant to a changing cultural identity efforts are made by many to re- interpret God’s unchanging Word to suit. To make it softer, more friendly and more in step with an increasingly sin soaked world. It then becomes man’s word and not God’s and becomes worthless lies. One may not like or agree with what the Bible says but changing its clear meaning is deceitful beyond measure.

We can use Homosexuality as an example. Still a major talking point within the church, God’s Word is very clear, a homosexual lifestyle is sinful according to scripture as is a man and a woman living together unmarried. Sin is sin.

Now that view is not popular. The world now holds a different perspective, one in which both yourself and UA would perhaps subscribe to. Partnered gay bishops, pastors, ministers, gay marriage all to be celebrated within the church and beyond.

If you say no, hold on, according to the Word of God this lifestyle is sinful in the eyes of God, one is squeezed by the world, called names and viewed as unloving and cruel, anti-gay and bigoted.

Sin was is such a problem for mankind now and for his eternal destiny that the bible teaches us that Jesus Christ the Son of God, fully God yet fully man died on a cross as a sacrifice to take the punishment we all deserve as a result of our sin laden life. Again you may reject this hypothesis but according to scripture mankind’s biggest problem is SIN.

Christian’s understand that they have no righteousness of their own. Only Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. We are saved, redeemed through Christ and Christ alone.

Therefore how can a bible believing Christian stand and teach and encourage others to disobey the clear Word and teaching of God. To participate in actions which separate us from God and to lead others into sin. God does not hate sinners but he does hate sin of every kind. God loved His creation so much that he died to save us. Not the actions of a hateful, spiteful God.

The world may think that it does not like the message of the Bible, rejecting and disowning its Truth.

However the Bible is either God’s Word or it is not. There can be no in between, no one foot in the Christian camp and one foot in the world.

My message may appear less palatable less friendly than the one presented by UA, but either God is both God of Old and New Testaments or He is not. There is no half measure

I have no wish to hide or to compromise or be popular, to make different God’s Word when it comes to Creation, Evolution, Noah’s Flood, Giants, Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Christ’s Return et al …

I understand that you reject what I believe. But I hope that you understand what I am trying to say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by alfajambo

[LesJambes]

Another thesis from Ugly American. Maybe this will be the one that makes me accept Jesus, and not be tortured for eternity. I've got things to do today, but if there's time later I'll respond to your lengthy essay.

[scott herbertson]

4 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Are they indeed? Which passages in the Quran in particular are they taking this inspiration for scientific research from? I'd be interested in reading them.

 

If it does indeed encourage such a thing then it's got one-up over Christianity.

 

 

 

 

Not specifically scientific research of course but the woman scientist in the link gives one of her reasons for promoting science education and women into science as ( I wouldn’t say it’s a one up  on either Christianity or an atheist approach but for her, her religion is an inspiration)

 

 

4. As a Muslim, I was brought up on three pillars that a.) I should take advantage of every minute in my life to make it useful b.) I am responsible for helping humanity c.) what matters is that I try.

 

 

 

[Ray Gin]

Yes, I saw that. Tenuous at best.

[scott herbertson]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Yes, I saw that. Tenuous at best.

 

I agree, but it’s how she sees it. It’s also fair to say that in its early period Islam was far more accommodating to scientific enquiry than Christianity was and there were many scientific achievements by Arab scientists which exceeded those of the West which was hampered by church backed nonsense like ‘humours’ to explain the world.

[doctor jambo]

I don't have faith .

I wish I did.

I used to, but have been through too much and seen too much to believe in benevolence from high.

 I would find comfort in faith, and sanctuary, as I did when I was young- someone to pray to for strength or courage.

 

I would rather believe in the good and evil of men- that is of our own doing.

Than in the apathy of a divinity who allowed it to happen.

 

If it is God testing us to prove our worth, then I would want nothing to do with him/her that saw fit to torture me so.

I would love a deity on my side in a sticky situation, but would wonder why he had put me there in the first place

[Watt-Zeefuik]

3 hours ago, LesJambes said:

Another thesis from Ugly American. Maybe this will be the one that makes me accept Jesus, and not be tortured for eternity. I've got things to do today, but if there's time later I'll respond to your lengthy essay.

 

Please at least read the part where I say that getting you to accept Jesus is not remotely the point of all of this. Thanks.