Does atheism matter?

Húrin

In the recent fashion for public debate between atheists and theists, do you think there is anything of historical signifigance? Do you think that these debates will affect the course of western culture, or the course of politics? Or are they just a fun way to pass time and engage one's mind?

Zillah

Atheism is only important because religion is around.

Y'know, like, the chemicals one uses for chemotherapy are irrelevant without cancer.

More seriously, yes, I believe atheism is extremely important for the future. Religion has an awful influence on our species, from retarding scientific growth and understanding to sustaining bigoted stupidity from the bronze age.

Once we leave it all behind we can finally start to grow up as a species. The ongoing public debate is helping to achieve that. A great many people (and I mean the vast majority of believers I've met) don't really believe in anything and mostly continue with their religion out of a sense of duty/guilt/obligation. Publicizing the legitimacy of atheism helps these people shake off their child hood indoctrination.

Joe1919

Zillah wrote: »

......... Religion has an awful influence on our species, from retarding scientific growth ............

I'm just wondering if this is true. I always thought the opposite e.g. Copernicus was a priest, Mendel (father of genetics ) was a monk, Lemaitre (big bang theory) is a priest. Monasteries were 'centres of excellence' and learning in their own time.

Max Weber in his 'Spirit of Capatilism' argues that much of the Capitalist system was affected and promoted by the 'Protestant work ethic'.

Of course, war is said to promote scientific growth but is war or scientific growth always necessary a good thing.
Indeed, is uncritically believing in scientific growth as the measure or 'goal' of man itself not a type of religion. (having faith in Science)

Anyhow, can anyone cite a fairly good historical source on this,(Religion has retarded scientific growth), one that give facts and stastics and thats unbiased. I would be interested.

achtungbarry

Joe1919 wrote: »

I'm just wondering if this is true. I always thought the opposite e.g. Copernicus was a priest, Mendel (father of genetics ) was a monk, Lemaitre (big bang theory) is a priest. Monasteries were 'centres of excellence' and learning in their own time.

Max Weber in his 'Spirit of Capatilism' argues that much of the Capitalist system was affected and promoted by the 'Protestant work ethic'.

Of course, war is said to promote scientific growth but is war or scientific growth always necessary a good thing.
Indeed, is uncritically believing in scientific growth as the measure or 'goal' of man itself not a type of religion. (having faith in Science)

Anyhow, can anyone cite a fairly good historical source on this,(Religion has retarded scientific growth), one that give facts and stastics and thats unbiased. I would be interested.

The examples you cite are very valid (and there are many more) but they seem to be exceptions when we view the overall picture.

The Roman Empire was full of different and wildly varying religious beliefs. The Roman government was quite tolerant of different religious belief as long as it did not threaten the stability of the state.

However the adoption of Christianity by the Roman State coincided with a long and severe decline in the empire that lasted almost a thousand years.

It was only in the 1400s when certain people began to place an emphasis on questioning, empirical inquiry and the principles of humanistic thought did we finally see a "Renaissance" of learning, artistic expression and scientific discovery.

We see a renaissance in political value at the end of the 18th century when the divine right of monarchs was questioned leading eventually to revolution which eventully led to the western style republican democracies we have today.

History seems to tell us that it was only when people questioned the status quo whether that be religious, political or other, did we really advance as a race in terms of science, art, thought etc.

The 1000 or so years of the European Dark age were dominated by obediance to and a non questioning of the church authorities/doctrine.

Zillah

Joe1919 wrote: »

I'm just wondering if this is true. I always thought the opposite e.g. Copernicus was a priest, Mendel (father of genetics ) was a monk, Lemaitre (big bang theory) is a priest. Monasteries were 'centres of excellence' and learning in their own time.

I think you'll find that almost everyone was religious during those periods, so anyone who makes any contribution to science is likely to be religious anyway. Not to mention the fact that for a long time the clergy were generally the only people who were taught to read or encouraged to think deeply or delve into older writings. Speaking of older writings, the absolute scandal that is the Church's handling of the Hellenic legacy is evidence enough for me that irrational religion is anti-knowledge. Robin, if I recall, could go into more detail on this.

Same argument can be used for the Church as a whole. People frequently claim that the church funded a great many universities etc and therefore contributed to science. Well, at the time the only two groups that had any money were the Church and the Nobility. If other people had the money (like today) we see science progressing fine without Church patronage (like today).

Anyhow, can anyone cite a fairly good historical source on this,(Religion has retarded scientific growth), one that give facts and stastics and thats unbiased. I would be interested.

I can't quote anything to the standard you're asking, but anecdotally its very convincing. Whatever about the past, all you need to do is look at the Middle East or the US and see the nightmarish things religion is doing to science and people's understanding of it. From college students announcing that they don't believe in genetics to massive lobbying for creationism, it's really sabotaging a whole generation of potential scientists.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

In the recent fashion for public debate between atheists and theists, do you think there is anything of historical signifigance? Do you think that these debates will affect the course of western culture, or the course of politics? Or are they just a fun way to pass time and engage one's mind?

While these debates and things will probably have very little effect in the immediate future, the more public atheism becomes combined with the already present shift in attitudes towards religion means that atheism isn't one of those things that will suddenly result in a massive change in any direction and become of historic significance. It's more of a slow creep which will eventually change the world but not in such a way that history books will talk of the great "Bible, Creationism and Prophecy" thread which shaped the future. Small changes accruing over a long time which lead to a completely different future. Much like evolution.

5uspect

Scepticism is very important in everything we do. Atheism (as a lack of belief) is essentially scepticism of religion.

Rev Hellfire

5uspect wrote: »

Atheism (as a lack of belief) is essentially scepticism of religion.

Not strictly true, since you can conceivably have atheists who are followers of a religion which lacks gods.

Atheism is totally irrelevant.

5uspect

Yes, but as I said Atheism as defined as a lack of belief.

Rev Hellfire

5uspect wrote: »

Yes, but as I said Atheism as defined as a lack of belief.

But that's not what atheism is.
Scepticism and atheism might be linked, but they're not equivalent.

5uspect

I originally wanted to post that scepticism is important. So, yes, I'll agree with you.
Mu definition of Atheism was too narrow.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

In the recent fashion for public debate between atheists and theists, do you think there is anything of historical signifigance? Do you think that these debates will affect the course of western culture, or the course of politics? Or are they just a fun way to pass time and engage one's mind?

As it's growing number of followers increase it's importance and impact will too. I think Zillahs answer covers it really. I think that religion is in it's final universal stage - the newer generations are far more resistant to dogmatic belief (due mainly to the availability of mass information: some might say this is ironic!) and take much cohercing to in order to 'fall into line'. As it enters it's final stage we will see a great resistance pioneered by fundamentalists who will be so deluded that they would rather invoke ancient spells that deal with reality or the death of the very thing that lets them hide from it.

Joe1919

stevejazzx wrote: »

the newer generations are far more resistant to dogmatic belief (due mainly to the availability of mass information: some might say this is ironic!) and take much cohercing to in order to 'fall into line'.

I often wonder if its the case that the people today are still being led by the high priests of advertising, fashon, image, mass media etc. Are we still as gullible as ever?
Look at all the people who were guilled by auctioneers and the property markets to buy properties that were only worth a fraction of what they paid. How many people look into a mirror and are truly happy with themselves?

Are we not, to some extent, controlled and led on by 'mass information', which is full of myths.

Some argue that we are as further away from reality as we always have, perhaps even further. The caveman with his superstitutions proberly had a better grasp of reality than we have. We think food come in packages.
We live in a 'simulated world', we have no independance and are more helpless than ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

stevejazzx

Joe1919 wrote: »

I often wonder if its the case that the people today are still being led by the high priests of advertising, fashon, image, mass media etc. Are we still as gullible as ever?
Look at all the people who were guilled by auctioneers and the property markets to buy properties that were only worth a fraction of what they paid. How many people look into a mirror and are truly happy with themselves?

Yes that s true but there are still twisted reasons (not saying I agree with them) which pruport to make the above (fashion, media, image etc) valid objects of worth and desire. The twisted reasons for religious interactions are falling into obscurity.

joe wrote:

Are we not, to some extent, controlled and led on by 'mass information', which is full of myths.

Yes and atheism is something which can attmept to question that which is held as sacred.

joe wrote:

Some argue that we are as further away from reality as we always have, perhaps even further. The caveman with his superstitutions proberly had a better grasp of reality than we have. We think food come in packages.
We live in a 'simulated world', we have no independance and are more helpless than ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

Yeah I might even agree with you there. I'm attempting to wirte a book about that exact subject! And of course religion is a powerful tool of illusion.

Joe1919

stevejazzx wrote: »

I'm attempting to wirte a book about that exact subject! And of course religion is a powerful tool of illusion.

I do wonder have people this 'vacuum' that needs to be filled with some type of myths or lies. Perhaps we just cant take reality and we have to stuff our heads with nonsense, TV, romance, video games.........

The best of luck with your book.

DublinWriter

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yeah I might even agree with you there. I'm attempting to wirte a book about that exact subject! And of course religion is a powerful tool of illusion.

'fraid Dawkins beat you to it. The God Delusion is a powerful tome.

What interests me is the need in the human psyche for what Dawkins called an extension of the childhood notion of the 'imaginary friend', i.e. a benevolant over-arching all-caring God-figure.

Even tribes untouched by greater humanity have developed some superstitious/supernatural belief system.

I personally believe that the next step in the evolution of mankind in the casting of superstitious beliefs, like so much redundant DNA.

Zombrex

DublinWriter wrote: »

I personally believe that the next step in the evolution of mankind in the casting of superstitious beliefs, like so much redundant DNA.

Probably not since this seems to be a fundamental way our brains work and has benefits in children learning about human to human interaction and modelling the world around them.

It is some what of an evolutionary by product that it leads to humans viewing the world in terms of human like agents, religion leading on from that. But the underlying reasons we do this seem to be some what necessary to how our brains process the world.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Once we leave it all behind we can finally start to grow up as a species.

What would this consist of?

Joe1919 wrote: »

I often wonder if its the case that the people today are still being led by the high priests of advertising, fashon, image, mass media etc. Are we still as gullible as ever?
Look at all the people who were guilled by auctioneers and the property markets to buy properties that were only worth a fraction of what they paid. How many people look into a mirror and are truly happy with themselves?

Are we not, to some extent, controlled and led on by 'mass information', which is full of myths.

Definitely. Most people believe the same things as each other. However, they believe different things to what previous generations believed.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes and atheism is something which can attmept to question that which is held as sacred.

Atheism does nothing to question the myths of capitalism.

stevejazzx

DublinWriter wrote: »

'fraid Dawkins beat you to it. The God Delusion is a powerful tome.

Oh it's fictional. I'd be terrible at just naming and shaming. I need a more submersive means by which to ply my metal.

dw wrote:

I personally believe that the next step in the evolution of mankind in the casting of superstitious beliefs, like so much redundant DNA.

Yes, I agree and the extended imaginary friend complex is a simple and quite exact description of religion.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

.


Atheism does nothing to question the myths of capitalism.

Do you consdier capitalism sacred? Capitalism is it's own most industrious critic.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

Probably not since this seems to be a fundamental way our brains work and has benefits in children learning about human to human interaction and modelling the world around them.

It is some what of an evolutionary by product that it leads to humans viewing the world in terms of human like agents, religion leading on from that. But the underlying reasons we do this seem to be some what necessary to how our brains process the world.

Although the mechanics that leave us predisposed this way currently are still in effect I think I can envisage them dying off - our pattern seeking minds are after all, pattern seeking so if we can't find advancement through superstition (which is clearly the case) we will go another route.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

What would this consist of?

Honestly? I think it would consist of an adult population who are educated, reasonable and open to rational debate. It would consist of a world built on agreed principles and common values, rather than archaic, dictated and rigid dogma. It would consist of a world where an otherwise intelligent human being will not make a ludicrous announcement such as "I don't believe in evolution". It would be a world where people don't riot, murder and vandalise because someone in a different part of the world drew a cartoon. A world where a 16 year old girl won't be lied to by a pro-lifer on a pregnancy helpline who is more concerned with magic than realism. Where stem cell research cures a range of dehumanising and torturous diseases. Where a person will make a sincere effort to improve their life rather than waste time begging an empty sky for help. Where injustice isn't rationalised as being part of a "greater plan". Where people don't fly planes into buildings.

That's what that world would consist of Húrin, a world where your ilk are considered as nothing more than a peculiar oddity. A world where even a child is wise enough to scoff at the idea of getting our values from a barbarous bronze age text.

Joe1919

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes, I agree and the extended imaginary friend complex is a simple and quite exact description of religion.

Although it is important to appreciate the role that imagination plays in our cognition.
Our senses give us a crude image of the world and we fill in the gaps with our imagination. All our objective thinking is really imaginative in that there is actually no way of getting outside of our own skin (subjectivity).

Our humanity is based on imagination; we empatise by imagining what its like to be the other person. We give our children imaginary nipples (dummys) to soothe them.
In being objective, we 'imagine' that we are not ourselves so to speak. To a certain extent, we are creatures of imagination. Instead of living in the present, we are always either projection ourselves into the past or into the future. As Aristotle says, we are Goal directed animals. We are always looking for a Goal, going somewhere but this is an illusion. Our final destination is the Grave. We suffer at the horrors of past injuries and we worry about possible future threats and failures. Yet neither the past or future exist . We fantasise about what or where or who we would like to be.

Of course, one could argue that religion is the ultimate fantasy. Pure rapture and eternal bliss..........

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Honestly? I think it would consist of an adult population who are educated, reasonable and open to rational debate. It would consist of a world built on agreed principles and common values, rather than archaic, dictated and rigid dogma. It would consist of a world where an otherwise intelligent human being will not make a ludicrous announcement such as "I don't believe in evolution". It would be a world where people don't riot, murder and vandalise because someone in a different part of the world drew a cartoon. A world where a 16 year old girl won't be lied to by a pro-lifer on a pregnancy helpline who is more concerned with magic than realism. Where stem cell research cures a range of dehumanising and torturous diseases. Where a person will make a sincere effort to improve their life rather than waste time begging an empty sky for help. Where injustice isn't rationalised as being part of a "greater plan". Where people don't fly planes into buildings.

That's what that world would consist of Húrin, a world where your ilk are considered as nothing more than a peculiar oddity. A world where even a child is wise enough to scoff at the idea of getting our values from a barbarous bronze age text.

In other words, you think that a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that you see in human nature? Pretty funny stuff. You forgot to mention that atheism will cure cancer and make world peace.

You mainly explained what the utopia you envision would not consist of, rather than what it would consist of. The last paragraph was frankly aggressive.

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

Do you consdier capitalism sacred? Capitalism is it's own most industrious critic.

No, I'd say that socialist groups are the most industrious critics of capitalism.

Overblood

Húrin wrote: »

You mainly explained what the utopia you envision would not consist of, rather than what it would consist of. The last paragraph was frankly aggressive.

Zillah's utopia will lack the insanity inspired by religion we see today. And that's a good thing. So what if he listed what the world would not consist of. Is his argument flawed just because of that?

If I envisaged a world without lions and said "in the future nobody will be eaten by lions", would you come along and argue: "well , you mention what the world wouldn't have, rather than what it would have..."

What he said was plain and simple truth. And his last paragraph is a world I look forward to.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

Honestly? I think it would consist of an adult population who are educated, reasonable and open to rational debate. It would consist of a world built on agreed principles and common values, rather than archaic, dictated and rigid dogma. It would consist of a world where an otherwise intelligent human being will not make a ludicrous announcement such as "I don't believe in evolution". It would be a world where people don't riot, murder and vandalise because someone in a different part of the world drew a cartoon. A world where a 16 year old girl won't be lied to by a pro-lifer on a pregnancy helpline who is more concerned with magic than realism. Where stem cell research cures a range of dehumanising and torturous diseases. Where a person will make a sincere effort to improve their life rather than waste time begging an empty sky for help. Where injustice isn't rationalised as being part of a "greater plan". Where people don't fly planes into buildings.

That's what that world would consist of Húrin, a world where your ilk are considered as nothing more than a peculiar oddity. A world where even a child is wise enough to scoff at the idea of getting our values from a barbarous bronze age text.

LOL. Though I do rather like the poetic twist on 'begging an empty sky', might use that line. Some of you guys have really snappy phrases.

Overblood wrote: »

What he said was plain and simple truth. And his last paragraph is a world I look forward to.

And he's got followers. I suppose if its plain and simple truth and all......

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

In other words, you think that a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that you see in human nature?

I think a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that are caused by religion and similarly irrational thinking, yes. Note that I didn't say anything about war, poverty or disease, nor did I use the word "utopia". I simply described some of the awful things that religion causes. If you want to build a strawman out of my argument feel free, but that reflects more on you than I.

You mainly explained what the utopia you envision would not consist of, rather than what it would consist of.

So? Atheism is the lack of religion, so is it not reasonable to describe an atheistic world as one that lacks the problems caused by religion?

The last paragraph was frankly aggressive.

I wish to see your world view expunged from humanity. I hate what you believe and what it causes. So yes, it'll probably come across as aggressive.

JimiTime wrote:

Though I do rather like the poetic twist on 'begging an empty sky', might use that line. Some of you guys have really snappy phrases.

Thanks, I do try.

seanybiker

Im athiest and it dont bother me. I must say though that on boards atheism is as bad as any religion, if not worse.
The amount of people on here that push atheism is mental.
Live and let live.
Im not gonna get into all this darwin crap. I dont have a clue who this chap is.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

In other words, you think that a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that you see in human nature? Pretty funny stuff.

You asked him a question. If the answer cut a little close to the bone for you Hurin it is not his fault.

Rev Hellfire

I for one am looking forward to this brave new word with its rivers of chocolate and its candy drop trees ...

Dades

seanybiker wrote: »

Im athiest and it dont bother me. I must say though that on boards atheism is as bad as any religion, if not worse.
The amount of people on here that push atheism is mental.
Live and let live.

Atheists in an Atheism & Agnosticism forum? Whatever next - bowling on shabbos?

seanybiker wrote: »

Im not gonna get into all this darwin crap. I dont have a clue who this chap is.

Out of the gene pool, please.

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

Atheists in an Atheism & Agnosticism forum? Whatever next - bowling on shabbos?

Out of the gene pool, please.

In fairness the amount of evolutionists pushing Darwinism is ridiculous.:)

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I for one am looking forward to this brave new word with its rivers of chocolate and its candy drop trees ...

I would settle for people not flying planes into buildings because they have been convinced that their cause is the cause of God and they will be rewarded in the afterlife

But chocolate rivers would be nice too

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote: »

In fairness the amount of evolutionists pushing Darwinism is ridiculous.:)

lol

Zillah

Aw crap did I leave out the chocolate rivers from the Atheist Utopia speech again? Wicknight, shape up or I'll have to hire a new speech writer.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

I think a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that are caused by religion and similarly irrational thinking, yes. Note that I didn't say anything about war, poverty or disease, nor did I use the word "utopia". I simply described some of the awful things that religion causes. If you want to build a strawman out of my argument feel free, but that reflects more on you than I.

So? Atheism is the lack of religion, so is it not reasonable to describe an atheistic world as one that lacks the problems caused by religion?

The phrase you used about humanity maturing as a species sounded so important. I suppose I was expecting a bit more description. You listed a lot of problems that most reasonable people would wish the world to be rid of. But most of them have been shown to be quite possible without religion. Remember also that atheism is just atheism. It's not intrinsically more rational than theism.

I wish to see your world view expunged from humanity. I hate what you believe and what it causes. So yes, it'll probably come across as aggressive.

I don't think you particularly know what I believe. You seem to lump everyone who isn't atheist into the same box. I have an aversion to people who want to ideologically homogenise a diverse humanity. But I don't feel the need to insult at the drop of a hat.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

You listed a lot of problems that most reasonable people would wish the world to be rid of.

Well yes, but most religious people aren't very reasonable. That's the problem.

Remember also that atheism is just atheism. It's not intrinsically more rational than theism.

Haha yes it is.

"Not believing in Thor is just not believing in Thor. It's not intrinsically more rational than believing in Thor."

CerebralCortex

Overblood wrote: »

Zillah's utopia will lack the insanity inspired by religion we see today. And that's a good thing. So what if he listed what the world would not consist of. Is his argument flawed just because of that?

If I envisaged a world without lions and said "in the future nobody will be eaten by lions", would you come along and argue: "well , you mention what the world wouldn't have, rather than what it would have..."

What he said was plain and simple truth. And his last paragraph is a world I look forward to.

Here, here.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Well yes, but most religious people aren't very reasonable. That's the problem.

Most humans aren't very reasonable, whether religious or not. If history is anything to go by at all. As I said, most of the problems you listed have been shown to be quite possible without religion.

Haha yes it is.

"Not believing in Thor is just not believing in Thor. It's not intrinsically more rational than believing in Thor."

That is a correct statement, since it is possible to think of beliefs that are even less rational than believing in Thor.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Most humans aren't very reasonable, whether religious or not.

Such obtuse and irrelevant statements you make. Yes people are generally stupid and irrational, they're also generally religious. However, it has been shown that of the population of scientists (surely the most rational people on earth) they have a disproportionate amount of atheists in their ranks. Curious.

That is a correct statement, since it is possible to think of beliefs that are even less rational than believing in Thor.

*blink*

Wow.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Such obtuse and irrelevant statements you make. Yes people are generally stupid and irrational, they're also generally religious. However, it has been shown that of the population of scientists (surely the most rational people on earth) they have a disproportionate amount of atheists in their ranks. Curious.

It is not an obtuse and irrelevant statement, especially since you agree with it in the very next sentence. Most people I know are not religious, yet are just as irrational as anyone who is. I don't see how atheism will have a transformative effect on human nature to make us a more rational species.

I would also be sceptical of the power of reason, even if it were to somehow shine its light into every crevice of the human condition, to significantly reduce the natural violence of life.

*blink*

Wow.

Refutation missing? Are people who believe in Jesus Christ or Buddha and do not believe in Thor more or less rational than people who believe in Thor? How about people who believe in night unicorns from the sock drawer?

St_Crispin

Wicknight wrote: »

I would settle for people not flying planes into buildings because they have been convinced that their cause is the cause of God and they will be rewarded in the afterlife

But chocolate rivers would be nice too

You know, it'd be nice to see a world where the people don't launch wars against countries because "they hate our freedoms". Or where they don't criple a country with sanctions and cause the deaths of 250,000 children.

It'd be nice to see a world where the rich educated few don't foster wars in the third world for profit. Or hold countries to ransom because of debt.

I wonder of we look at all the suffering and wars over the last 100 years, how much is due to religion?

I've seen dawkins and Hitchens talk. And their tolerance for others non-existant. A world of people like that, with beliefs that strong, would end up with it's own secret police, with it's own vigilanties burning down churchs and mosques.

The dark ages were not dark because of religion. They we dark because barbarian hordes ravaged europe. At the same time a muslim empire was thriving and producing some of the best philosophers, mathamaticians and scientists the world knew. The renanainse happened because muslim scholars saved the works of byzantium, translated them (with their jewish counterparts) in spain and they then travelled to the rest of europe.

The renainance, that great era of learning, just started more wars. The industrial revolution made it more efficent. The biggest wars of the last century occured between educated countries, and was about politics, not religion. The greatest danger the world has ever faced (The cold war) was caused by politics, not religion.

Religion hasn't always been great for people. (BTW, you're also forgetting all the hospitals and charity that religion is responsible for. Or do you think the red cross and red crescent and full of fanatics) But every major conflict is about either profit or a belief. It may be a religious, cultural or political belief, but it's the belief. And an athiest country, say the USSR, will be just as much a threat as any other. It's human nature, not just religion.

Your brave new world is going to end up turning in on itself.

Húrin

St_Crispin wrote: »

Your brave new world is going to end up turning in on itself.

Good post, quite succint. However to be fair to Wicknight I think that he generally does not go in for this naive utopian stuff.

stevejazzx

St_Crispin wrote: »

You know, it'd be nice to see a world where the people don't launch wars against countries because "they hate our freedoms". Or where they don't criple a country with sanctions and cause the deaths of 250,000 children.

It'd be nice to see a world where the rich educated few don't foster wars in the third world for profit. Or hold countries to ransom because of debt.

I wonder of we look at all the suffering and wars over the last 100 years, how much is due to religion?

I've seen dawkins and Hitchens talk. And their tolerance for others non-existant. A world of people like that, with beliefs that strong, would end up with it's own secret police, with it's own vigilanties burning down churchs and mosques.

The dark ages were not dark because of religion. They we dark because barbarian hordes ravaged europe. At the same time a muslim empire was thriving and producing some of the best philosophers, mathamaticians and scientists the world knew. The renanainse happened because muslim scholars saved the works of byzantium, translated them (with their jewish counterparts) in spain and they then travelled to the rest of europe.

The renainance, that great era of learning, just started more wars. The industrial revolution made it more efficent. The biggest wars of the last century occured between educated countries, and was about politics, not religion. The greatest danger the world has ever faced (The cold war) was caused by politics, not religion.

Religion hasn't always been great for people. (BTW, you're also forgetting all the hospitals and charity that religion is responsible for. Or do you think the red cross and red crescent and full of fanatics) But every major conflict is about either profit or a belief. It may be a religious, cultural or political belief, but it's the belief. And an athiest country, say the USSR, will be just as much a threat as any other. It's human nature, not just religion.

Your brave new world is going to end up turning in on itself.

Hmmm in the spirit of not attacking the poster..I don't have the energy to address your immensly flawed post but here is a list of current religious conflicts - I tihnk I'd like to give the alternative a go

Afghanistan:……Extreme, radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups, non-Muslims. Osama bin Laden heads a terrorist group called Al Quada (The Source) whose headquarters were in Afghanistan. They were protected by, and integrated with, the Taliban dictatorship in the country. The Northern Alliance of rebel Afghans, Britain and the U.S. attacked the Taliban and Al Quada, establishing a new regime in part of the country. The fighting continues.

Bosnia:……Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic), Muslims. Fragile peace is holding, due only to the presence of peacekeepers.
Côte d’Ivoire:……Muslims, Indigenous, Christian. Following the elections in late 2000, government security forces “began targeting civilians solely and explicitly on the basis of their religion, ethnic group, or national origin. The overwhelming majority of victims come from the largely Muslim north of the country, or are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants…”
A military uprising continued the slaughter in 2002.

Cyprus:……Christians, Muslims. The island is partitioned,creating enclaves for ethnic Greeks (Christians) and Turks (Muslims). A UN peace keeping force is maintaining stability.

East Timor:……Christians, Muslims. A Roman Catholic country. About 20% of the population died by murder, starvation or disease after they were forcibly annexed by Indonesia (mainly Muslim). After voting for independence, many Christians were exterminated or exiled by the Indonesian army and army-funded militias in a carefully planned program of genocide and religious cleansing. The situation is now stable.
India:……Animists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs. Various conflicts that heat up periodically producing loss of life.

Indonesia, province of Ambon:……Christians, Muslims. After centuries of relative peace, conflicts between Christians and Muslims started during 1999-JUL in this province of Indonesia. The situation now appears to be stable.

Iraq:……Kurds, Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, western armed forces. By mid-2006, a small scale civil war, primarily between Shiite and Sunni Muslims started. The situation appears to be steadily degenerating.

Kashmir:……Hindus, Muslims. A chronically unstable region of the world, claimed by both Pakistan and India. The availability of nuclear weapons and the eagerness to use them are destabilizing the region further. More details Thirty to sixty thousand people have died since 1989.

Kosovo:……Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. Peace enforced by NATO peacekeepers. There is convincing evidence of past mass murder by
Yugoslavian government (mainly Serbian Orthodox Christians) against ethnic Albanians (mostly Muslim).

Kurdistan:……Christians, Muslims. Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic, Assyrian Orthodox).

Macedonia:……Macedonian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. Muslims (often referred to as ethnic Albanians) engaged in a civil war with the rest of the country who are primarily Macedonian Orthodox Christians. A peace treaty has been signed. Disarmament by NATO is complete.

Middle East:……Jews, Muslims, Christians. The peace process between Israel and Palestine suffered a complete breakdown. This has resulted in the deaths of thousands, in the ratio of three dead for each Jew. Major strife broke out in 2000-SEP. Major battle in Lebanon during mid-2006. No resolution appears possible.

Nigeria:……Christians, Animists, Muslims. Yourubas and Christians in the south of the country are battling Muslims in the north. Country is struggling towards democracy after decades of Muslim military dictatorships.

Northern Ireland:……Protestants, Catholics. After 3,600 killings and assassinations over 30 years, some progress has been made in the form of a ceasefire and an independent status for the country.

Pakistan:……Suni, Shi’ite Muslims. Low level mutual attacks.

Philippines:……Christians, Muslims. A low level conflict between the mainly Christian central government and Muslims in the south of the country has continued for centuries.


Russia,Chechnya:……Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Many atrocities have been alleged on both sides. According to the Voice of the Martyrs: “In January 2002 Chechen rebels included all Christians on their list of official enemies, vowing to ‘blow up every church and mission-related facility in Russia’.”
South Africa:……Animists, “Witches”. Hundreds of persons, suspected and accused of witches practicing black magic, are murdered each year.

Sri Lanka:……Buddhists, Hindus. Tamils (a mainly Hindu 18% minority) are involved in a war for independence since 1983 with the rest of the country (70% Sinhalese Buddhist). Hundreds of thousands have been killed. The conflict took a sudden change for the better in 2002-SEP, when the Tamils dropped their demand for complete independence. The South Asian Tsunami in 2004-DEC induced some cooperation. The situation in mid-2006 is degenerating.

Sudan:……Animists, Christians, Muslims. Complex ethnic, racial, religious conflict in which the Muslim regime committed genocide against both Animists and Christians in the south of the country. Slavery and near slavery were practiced. A ceasefire was signed in 2006-MAY between some of the combatants. Warfare continues in the Darfur region, primarily between a Muslim militia and Muslim inhabitants.

Thailand:……Buddhists, Muslims. Muslim rebels have been involved in a bloody insurgency in southern Thailand — a country that is 95% Buddhist. The army has seized power and has agreed to talks with the rebels.

Tibet:……Buddhists, Communists. Country was annexed by Chinese Communists in late 1950’s. Brutal suppression of Buddhism continues.

Uganda:…. Animists, Christians, Muslims. Christian rebels of the Lord’s Resistance Army are conducting a civil war in the north of Uganda. Their goal is a Christian theocracy whose laws are based on the Ten Commandments. They abduct, enslave and/or raped about 2,000 children a year.

from
http://justsaynotoreligion.com/religious-wars/

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Refutation missing? Are people who believe in Jesus Christ or Buddha and do not believe in Thor more or less rational than people who believe in Thor? How about people who believe in night unicorns from the sock drawer?

Buddha > Jesus > Thor > Night Unicorns, in that order. They're all pretty damn irrational regardless. An atheist, however, takes the very rational position that there is insufficient evidence for any of these.

(A note on Buddha and Jesus: I'm willing to accept that they as people existed for the sake of argument, obviously I'm referring to their take on the supernatural nature of the universe)

St Crispin, quite a well written post. There's plenty of particular points that I could argue with (especially about Dawkins and his secret police lol), but my argument all along was about the smaller things in life. I listed a number of very real problems in the world today that can be squarely landed at the feet of religion, I'm not discussing wars throughout history.

Hurin, you're still presenting that dishonest utopia strawman you've gotten attached to. You're dragging it through this thread like a kid who won't leave their teddy at home. I never claimed it would solve all the world's problems, I never said it would make a utopia, I listed some very specific problems that religion causes that I would like to see the end of.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

....I would also be sceptical of the power of reason, even if it were to somehow shine its light into every crevice of the human condition, to significantly reduce the natural violence of life...

Well if you could propose a more effective method we'd gladly listen?

Zombrex

St_Crispin wrote: »

You know, it'd be nice to see a world where the people don't launch wars against countries because "they hate our freedoms". Or where they don't criple a country with sanctions and cause the deaths of 250,000 children.

It would be nice, but those are not caused by religion

It is a straw man to try and argue that the position is that if we get rid of religion we will cure all wars and violence. That isn't the position, it is simply an invented position that pro-religious people find easier to argue against.

Religion causes a lot of wars, it causes a lot of hatred and it causes a lot of manipulation and a lot of bigotry. It doesn't cause all of it but a lot of it.

The argument that we would just find another way excuse to kill each other so what is the point in objecting to religion is some what nonsensical. We may, but I'd object to those reasons as well. That is how society improves. Imagine if a doctor threw in the towel saying what is the point I cure the patient and he just ends up getting sick again. Better to just let him die now, sure he is going to die anyway.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Buddha > Jesus > Thor > Night Unicorns, in that order. They're all pretty damn irrational regardless. An atheist, however, takes the very rational position that there is insufficient evidence for any of these.

Since you admit that beliefs less rational than Thor are possible, surely disbelief in Thor is not inherently irrational if the disbeliever believes other, less rational things.

Many atheists disbelieve in these deities for that reason (lack of evidence). Many theists believe as they do on the grounds that there is enough evidence. That makes them rational also, surely.

However, some atheists disbelieve for other, less rational reasons. Thus atheism is not inherently rational. If you mean an actual ideology that you think the world should adopt, then you should name it because it seems not to be atheism itself.

Hurin, you're still presenting that dishonest utopia strawman you've gotten attached to. You're dragging it through this thread like a kid who won't leave their teddy at home. I never claimed it would solve all the world's problems, I never said it would make a utopia, I listed some very specific problems that religion causes that I would like to see the end of.

You don't think that a statement so grand as "humanity maturing as a species" doesn't imply utopianism? You have ignored the fact that most of the problems you listed have also existed without religion. I see no reason why an end to religion would end these problems which are, in my opinion, rooted in human nature.

As we agreed, most reasonable people would wish to see the world rid of these nasty problems that are apparently caused by religion. Now we also agreed that most people aren't reasonable. So you're either saying that most people do not wish to live in a world without 9/11 attacks and clerical abuse, or that the world must be changed without the participation of its irrational inhabitants.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well if you could propose a more effective method we'd gladly listen?

I don't see why I have to. People (mainly white, upper-class, European men) have been prescribing reason (whatever that is) as a cure-all for the world's problems for more than two hundred years. However, every advance in 'rational human progress' has brought more ecological destruction, efficient warfare, and subjugation of peoples viewed as irrational. So I hope you can excuse me if I am sceptical of this prescription.

I just think that if someone is truly motivated by, say, a desire to see less violence in the world, one should advance the cause of non-violence. I say this in the context of this debate because it is apparent that both peaceful atheists and peaceful religious people exist - in my opinion, in the majority - so anyone on either side who says that the world must be rid of religion, or rid of atheism, to achieve a greater (if not perfect) peace, does not seem truly motivated by a desire to see less violence in the world. They come across as motivated by hatred of religion, or of atheism.

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

Since you admit that beliefs less rational than Thor are possible, surely disbelief in Thor is not inherently irrational if the disbeliever believes other, less rational things.

So what you're saying is it's rational for an irrational person to believe in irrational things? I suppose belief in Thor would be rational if you were a Viking.

Húrin wrote: »

Many atheists disbelieve in these deities for that reason (lack of evidence). Many theists believe as they do on the grounds that there is enough evidence. That makes them rational also, surely.

It would seem so, until you ask them to demonstrate this evidence that is.

Húrin

Mickeroo wrote: »

So what you're saying is it's rational for an irrational person to believe in irrational things? I suppose belief in Thor would be rational if you were a Viking.

No, I'm saying that not everyone who disbelieves in Thor, or God, or whatever, disbelieves for rational reasons. It is possible to be atheist for irrational reasons. Thus atheism is simply atheism. It is not the same as rationalism, empiricism or positivism.

It would seem so, until you ask them to demonstrate this evidence that is.

Seems to work for PDN and Jakkass.