Atheism,An unoffical religion

Dave!

Great analogy, hadn't thought of that...

stereoroid

Myksyk wrote:

I think it would be fair to say that most atheists would start believing in the supernatural if there was compelling evidence to do so. There isn't.

Ah, but if there was evidence, it would appear in the natural world, therefore it would no longer be "supernatural", would it? Just show us the evidence, and we'll get it under the microscope forthwith... :cool:

5uspect

stereoroid wrote:

Ah, but if there was evidence, it would appear in the natural world, therefore it would no longer be "supernatural", would it? Just show us the evidence, and we'll get it under the microscope forthwith... :cool:

Vivisection FTW!

lostexpectation

cavedave wrote:

Sam Harris here argues that calling yourself atheist of bright or whatever is implying that the alternative is a legitimate belief system rather then voodoo with better management.

um there are innumerable anti-racist organisations???

most of the world thinks bush is bigger threat then bin laden, so he's very american when he says muslims are our biggest worry...

Zillah

lostexpectation wrote:

um there are innumerable anti-racist organisations???

Yes but you wouldn't describe yourself as an Amnesty Internationalist now you would?

most of the world thinks bush is bigger threat then bin laden, so he's very american when he says muslims are our biggest worry...

Most of the people in the world are total morons. Can you imagine what Bin Laden would do if he had the power Bush has? Sure, Bush isn't a person I agree with very much, but saying he's worse than an Islamic Fundamentalist strikes me as very adolescent. You only have to look at places like pre-Invasion Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran to see what people like Bin Laden want.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Most of the people in the world are total morons. Can you imagine what Bin Laden would do if he had the power Bush has?

Rather importantly, though, he doesn't. There are, in turn, almost certainly worse people than bin Laden, but who we've never heard of because they have no power at all.

Zillah wrote:

Sure, Bush isn't a person I agree with very much, but saying he's worse than an Islamic Fundamentalist strikes me as very adolescent. You only have to look at places like pre-Invasion Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran to see what people like Bin Laden want.

They may want it, but they don't necessarily have the power to achieve it, except very locally - and they therefore hardly constitute a threat to us (although courtesy largely of the US, those regimes are pretty heavily be-weaponed).

Bush is responsible for more deaths than bin Laden - what other measure did you have in mind?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Bush is responsible for more deaths than bin Laden - what other measure did you have in mind?

Proximity...?

Hivemind187

This is a thought experiment argument NOT a scientific paper.

The basic idea is that a sufficiently advanced culture with sufficiently advanced technology would be capable of creating a program/computer/system in which the near infinite calculations required to simulate everything from molecular exchanges to sentient personalities to random cosmological events would be possible. The purpose of which would be to get around the need for space travel/entertainment purposes or a practical joke.

The theorem states that we have no way of prooving this is true because the system is set up in such a way as to prevent or control the parameters in which it could be evidenced or understood.

This does not mean that it IS true, merely that it is an inarguable position.


As for Ghosts ... I can bring myself to comprehend circumstances or mechanisms by which such things could happen far easier than I can extend myself to the irrefutable existance of god - but only because I like the idea

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Bush is responsible for more deaths than bin Laden - what other measure did you have in mind?

Proximity...?

Is Tora-Bora to New York closer than Washington to Baghdad?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote:

This does not mean that it IS true, merely that it is an inarguable position.

The point isn't if it is possible that it is true, the point is if you believe it is true.

Most atheists are rationalists, if there is no reason to believe something they generally don't believe it.

More importantly there are plenty of reasons why people believe in things they have no reason to believe in. If someone did believe in the alien super computer I would be skeptical about what "issues" they have that lead them to believe in it.

For example, if a mother refuses to believe her son raped and killed 6 women, despite tons of evidence and a confession, preferring to believe that the US Government set him up and brain washed him, that doesn't mean she is being more rational and open minded because it cannot be prove that the government didn't set him up.

One has to look at why someone believes what they do, not just what they believe.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote:

The point isn't if it is possible that it is true, the point is if you believe it is true.

Most atheists are rationalists, if there is no reason to believe something they generally don't believe it.

One has to look at why someone believes what they do, not just what they believe.

Point conceeded and fully agreed with.

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

Rather importantly, though, he doesn't. There are, in turn, almost certainly worse people than bin Laden, but who we've never heard of because they have no power at all.



They may want it, but they don't necessarily have the power to achieve it, except very locally - and they therefore hardly constitute a threat to us (although courtesy largely of the US, those regimes are pretty heavily be-weaponed).

Bush is responsible for more deaths than bin Laden - what other measure did you have in mind?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Without getting to much off thread I don't think I can agree with very locally part of that. The ease of global communications means that a serious terroist organisation can mobilise units all over the world. Without buying too much into 'fear' aspect of American foriegn policy it is not hard to imagine a Islamic terrorist organisation with abilty to carry out atrocities in most western cities at the touch of a keypad. So any such serious organisation having just local power in the modern age is a bit of a 'best case scneario' for us westerers. Also about the death tally between Bush and Bin laden and I am certainly not pro Bush but the comparison is imbalanced as we are more or less aware of the Bush led conflicts whereas Bin Laden and the myth of Bin laden is still quite unquantifiable. Either way what seems undisputed is that Bushs idea of enforced demoracy, although totalitarian and unjust, seems marginally better than the complete annihlation of the west which is accepted by most as the actual goal of extreme fundamentalist Islamist terrorists to which Bin Laden is a poster boy, his legacy might be an inserted fiction by the U.S but there is little doubt that there are real people trying to achieve the aims which are so commonly attributed to him.

Back on thread and I think that calling atheism a religon is little more than opportunist 'one up manship' from our christinan freinds. And it is poorly exectued 'one up manship' as the comparison doesn't really fit becasue if i tell another atheist that I don't want to be an atheist any more, I imagine they'd be completely non plused..i can't imagine i'd be told that i was going to suffer for eternity as a result.....well maybe zillah would say that:D
Quite simply all religons have set customs a set way of praising and believing whereas athiest belief is more often than not a choice made out of independant discovery. Religon is usually a choice made by context, location locatin location. I mean we are baptised and confirmed before we know anything of real worth, we are fast tracked into belief in the hope that we never find the need to question it.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Is Tora-Bora to New York closer than Washington to Baghdad?

Proximity to me. Geographically and culturally.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Without getting to much off thread I don't think I can agree with very locally part of that. The ease of global communications means that a serious terroist organisation can mobilise units all over the world. Without buying too much into 'fear' aspect of American foriegn policy it is not hard to imagine a Islamic terrorist organisation with abilty to carry out atrocities in most western cities at the touch of a keypad. So any such serious organisation having just local power in the modern age is a bit of a 'best case scneario' for us westerers.

And the other is a 'worst case fantasy'. Such groups only exist in James Bond films - there is no evidence that one exists, or ever existed. Indeed, the evidence is that terrorism is very much a weapon of poverty - it's a people business, and low-tech.

The West, on the other hand, has exactly the powers you ascribe to "our enemy" - and exercises it daily.

stevejazzx wrote:

Also about the death tally between Bush and Bin laden and I am certainly not pro Bush but the comparison is imbalanced as we are more or less aware of the Bush led conflicts whereas Bin Laden and the myth of Bin laden is still quite unquantifiable.

You know, though, I think we'd have noticed if bin Laden had successfully caused half a million deaths (Lancet study, Iraq).

stevejazzx wrote:

Either way what seems undisputed is that Bushs idea of enforced demoracy, although totalitarian and unjust, seems marginally better than the complete annihlation of the west which is accepted by most as the actual goal of extreme fundamentalist Islamist terrorists to which Bin Laden is a poster boy, his legacy might be an inserted fiction by the U.S but there is little doubt that there are real people trying to achieve the aims which are so commonly attributed to him.

bin Laden's stated aims are far more modest - the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi (achieved), a unitary Muslim caliphate, and an end to Western interventions in the Middle East (support for Israel in particular). He is also a perfect example of the religious type of leader who emerges to express the will of the people under tyranny - one of religion's better points, since the exaggerated
piety of tyrants makes it hard for them to attack such leaders.

As to Bush, all the evidence points to "spreading democracy" being in every sense a lie and a cover for aggression.

I would hardly account myself as in favour of any terrorist (and bin Laden is unquestionably one, even if much of what is attributed to him may be false), but I have no time for the doublethink and lies involved in current US policy. All that has happened since the end of the Cold War is perfectly comprehensible in terms of historic Great Power politics, with the added factor that the US is much more dominant than any other single power has been.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

And the other is a 'worst case fantasy'. Such groups only exist in James Bond films - there is no evidence that one exists, or ever existed. Indeed, the evidence is that terrorism is very much a weapon of poverty - it's a people business, and low-tech.

The West, on the other hand, has exactly the powers you ascribe to "our enemy" - and exercises it daily.

Look hold on, this James Bond refernece is totally out of place.
I was merely pointing the reality that serious terrorist organisations can mobilise units globally due to the great advance of modern communications. You had stated that they could only or were only at present affecting locally or regionally, I disagreed. On there being no evidence of the existence of these organisations, well, you don't normally make rash statements but that might be one. I could link to tonnes of evidnece to support and indeed confirm global terrorist networks (which please remeber is my only claim) but we'd get into a statistics and propoganda debate that would last eons. I do agree with your sentiments on American foreign policy and indeed the continually increasing Orwellian aspect of modern society but that doesn't mean that globally networked terrorism is a myth or a conspiracy. I could obviously highlight the recent attcks in America, Spain, London but you might argue the uncertainty of responsibility for these events which is fine, nonetheless, it's clear that, at the very least they could've been carried out by the same organisation - that is to say that is widely agreed that Al Queda have the resources for such.

scofflaw wrote:

You know, though, I think we'd have noticed if bin Laden had successfully caused half a million deaths (Lancet study, Iraq).

Well I said it was quite unquantifiable but no doubt considerable amounts carried out in his name or in the name of his Organisation(s).

scofflaw wrote:

bin Laden's stated aims are far more modest - the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi (achieved), a unitary Muslim caliphate, and an end to Western interventions in the Middle East (support for Israel in particular). He is also a perfect example of the religious type of leader who emerges to express the will of the people under tyranny - one of religion's better points, since the exaggerated
piety of tyrants makes it hard for them to attack such leaders.

As to Bush, all the evidence points to "spreading democracy" being in every sense a lie and a cover for aggression.

I would hardly account myself as in favour of any terrorist (and bin Laden is unquestionably one, even if much of what is attributed to him may be false), but I have no time for the doublethink and lies involved in current US policy. All that has happened since the end of the Cold War is perfectly comprehensible in terms of historic Great Power politics, with the added factor that the US is much more dominant than any other single power has been.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes I agree with you, with a one exception:

1. Bin Laden's aims I think are more far reaching and extreme than you ascribe to him above, although I would also agree that attribution of atrocities to him may be partly inaccurate, false, or purposely misleading by the US for obvious reasons.

The main contention here seems that I believe modern terrorism is a lot more organised and much more a real threat on a global level than you.
Now one of favorite books is 1984 and I see it's predictions happening around us all the time but having also researched terrorism for some time (for a novel I'm attempting to write:rolleyes: ) there appears no be no question as to it's relvelancy and power and so I'm very cautious to shout conspiracy or propoganda every time Al Queda is blamed for something. I always try to find out more...

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Look hold on, this James Bond refernece is totally out of place.
I was merely pointing the reality that serious terrorist organisations can mobilise units globally due to the great advance of modern communications. You had stated that they could only or were only at present affecting locally or regionally, I disagreed. On there being no evidence of the existence of these organisations, well, you don't normally make rash statements but that might be one. I could link to tonnes of evidnece to support and indeed confirm global terrorist networks (which please remeber is my only claim) but we'd get into a statistics and propoganda debate that would last eons.

Well, you're quite right - I misinterpreted what you were saying when you said "it is not hard to imagine a Islamic terrorist organisation with the ability to carry out atrocities in most western cities at the touch of a keypad". I assumed you meant having a serious remote technological capability, rather than being able to send an email to a terrorist cell in another place.

Certainly there are global terrorist networks, but that's been true from quite some time, and the telephone has also been with us quite some while now. I don't see that the global reach of these organisations is in any sense a new thing.

stevejazzx wrote:

I do agree with your sentiments on American foreign policy and indeed the continually increasing Orwellian aspect of modern society but that doesn't mean that globally networked terrorism is a myth or a conspiracy. I could obviously highlight the recent attcks in America, Spain, London but you might argue the uncertainty of responsibility for these events which is fine, nonetheless, it's clear that, at the very least they could've been carried out by the same organisation - that is to say that is widely agreed that Al Queda have the resources for such.

Sure - there's certainly no reason why Al Qaeda couldn't have carried out all those attacks, particularly since Al Qaeda is thought to be an umbrella organisation.

Just to clarify how I think of a global terrorist organisation, and see whether we're talking about the same thing, or whether I would still find your version to be more Hollywood than reality:

I'm thinking of a series of cells in different countries and cities, without any horizontal links - the covert cell structure which virtually all modern terrorist organisations use to resist penetration by security forces.

Each of these cells has probably been recruited locally by an international recruiter. It is possible they share some kind of common background, and likely they share a common doctrine, but there will be large local differences in capability, ferocity, training etc. One or more members may have received training in some kind of 'training camp', usually overseas, but they may simply have received instruction from their recruiter.

Most of the time, the terrorist cell will be completely or nearly dormant, since constantly active covert cells have a limited lifespan, both through fatigue and security force operations. They can be activated by the receipt of instructions, so multiple cells can be activated for a campaign simultaneously.

The form and type of atrocity carried out by a cell will depend on capability, callousness, and the timeframe of the 'campaign'. The 9/11 attack, for example, took a couple of years of planning, whereas "bombs on public transport" is much easier to carry out.

Even for a simple bombing attack, the pressures on the people in the cell are huge - which is where religion plays its part. They must secretly acquire the necessary materials, make the bombs, plan the attack, all the while pretending to lead normal lives and without attracting the attention of security forces. Then they must put the plan into action without balking at actually killing men, women and children, and without getting caught. Blowing yourself up with your bomb probably makes this easier in every respect.

Assuming your cell is successful, and did not all die, you now get to live with being a murderer. Personally, I suspect I would avoid the news for the following couple of weeks, to avoid the inevitable grief-stricken widows and parents. I daresay there are those who are hard enough of heart to enjoy their 'work', but in general such psychopaths do not make good or stable members of a covert cell.

You also have to avoid the inevitable security investigation. For both this reason, and the massively increased psychological pressure, I suspect that the majority of terrorist cells are one or two-shot weapons - hence the preference for suicide operations, since you're likely to get more of an impact from your one shot. The constant thread in such organisations will be the recruiters and teachers - the 'support' or 'admin' 'staff' of the organisation, who will also be the international element. These guys will almost certainly not be involved in any actual attacks - ideally, they will be entirely 'clean', in order to be able to travel internationally with a minimum of trouble.

The only thing, therefore, that will keep such a terrorist organisation operational in any particular country is a constant supply of angry young men to radicalise, and a general sense of grievance amongst the relevant community, which will allow recruiters access to the young men.

To make a general nod in the direction of the thread topic - one can see that religion can play a huge part in sustaining such terrorist groups. While it is certainly possible for terrorists to be atheists, one of the features that tells you atheism is not a religion is its inability to sustain groups in this way - atheist terrorist groups will invariably have some other sustaining ideology, like Marxism.

stevejazzx wrote:

Well I said it was quite unquantifiable but no doubt considerable amounts carried out in his name or in the name of his Organisation(s).

Yes, I tend to agree, although I see it happening very much to the above - a rather awkward process.

stevejazzx wrote:

Yes I agree with you, with a one exception:

1. Bin Laden's aims I think are more far reaching and extreme than you ascribe to him above, although I would also agree that attribution of atrocities to him may be partly inaccurate, false, or purposely misleading by the US for obvious reasons.

The main contention here seems that I believe modern terrorism is a lot more organised and much more a real threat on a global level than you.
Now one of favorite books is 1984 and I see it's predictions happening around us all the time but having also researched terrorism for some time (for a novel I'm attempting to write:rolleyes: ) there appears no be no question as to it's relvelancy and power and so I'm very cautious to shout conspiracy or propoganda every time Al Queda is blamed for something. I always try to find out more...

As a threat, even the best organised and most pervasive terrorist organisation presents an extraordinarily low level of risk to the general populace. The London tube bombings killed 52 people, and injured 100 badly enough to cause overnight hospitalisation or worse - equivalent, in other words, to about 2 months of London road deaths and a couple of weeks of London road injuries. In other words, a road safety campaign that cut the rate of road deaths by 20% in London in 2003-2004 achieved more impact in saving lives and injuries than preventing the London tube bombings would have done. See here for a wider comparison.

At the end of the day, that's really my perspective on terrorism - it barely registers as an actuarial risk. If people want to worry more about it than their weight because it's more dramatic, more fool them - on average, being overweight is more likely to kill you than all the world's terrorists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

im increasingly interested in the notion of an 'Einsteinian' god, is this just wonder at the universe, another name for the as yet unknown and urge to known it, or maybe its just a philosophy. are there any organized 'Einsteinian' god enthusiasts/worshippers

Dave!

lostexpectation wrote: »

im increasingly interested in the notion of an 'Einsteinian' god, is this just wonder at the universe, another name for the as yet unknown and urge to known it, or maybe its just a philosophy. are there any organized 'Einsteinian' god enthusiasts/worshippers

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)"

I'm not sure you'd call it a philosophy, but there certainly is no 'Einsteinian god worshippers'. Dawkins argues that it's just a choice of words, and that 'God' is a term that Einstein used to refer to the admiration/awe he feels when considering the universe and its laws. He certainly doesn't believe in any personal god that could be worshipped.

komodosp

I think Seloth has a point - though not for the reason s/he says...

First of all, let me say that I don't believe in a god.

Now the thing about religion - as opposed to other scientific principles - is that if you argue with a religious person, and say what they believe is wrong, they get offended. If, however, you were to argue with someone about quantum theory, and tell them their idea was wrong, they wouldn't. Saying "You are wrong" seems a lot more offensive when applied to religion.

Atheists, on the other hand, shouldn't be like this - that is, some Atheists get offended by people trying to convert them, others feel they should take a moral stance and not participate in religious ceremonies.

If I had a kid, and let's say the mother was religious, and quite a few of my relatives are, I would have no problem with putting the child through a Christening for their sake, because to me, it's just some guy pouring water on a baby's head. I still celebrate Christmas, I'd have no problem with a religious wedding, and pretend to the priest I was religious to make everything go smoothly. I mean many non-pagans celebrate Hallowe'en...

For someone to try and convince me that Jesus is our saviour, is no different than them trying to convince me the stories of Fionn Mc Chumhaill or Cú Chullain are true. I'll argue it if I feel like arguing, I'll let them off if I don't, I certainly won't be offended by it. (However I would draw the line at indoctrinating my kid with the faith)

But I know of some Atheists who would have a big problem with participating in religious ceremonies, and these are the people who cause me to agree with Seloth, and the people to whom Atheism itself is a religion.

5uspect

komodosp wrote: »

But I know of some Atheists who would have a big problem with participating in religious ceremonies, and these are the people who cause me to agree with Seloth, and the people to whom Atheism itself is a religion.

Having a problem with participating in religious ceremonies does not make someone religious. Many people just go to Mass simply because its the done thing and as an Atheist I would like to see people realise that there's more to life than repetitive droning to the sky dictator once a week. By voicing my problems with such practice hopefully people will realise that they don't have to do these things.

I think this clip explains the point nicely!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qANMjwLmo6Y

komodosp

Well when I say a problem I mean other than that it's a big boring waste of time.