Does atheism matter?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Seems to work for PDN and Jakkass.

You have obviously never asked them :pac:

There is a big difference between claiming your beliefs are rational and that actually being true. In the end it always comes down to undefined "feelings" they have that something must be true.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

You have obviously never asked them :pac:

There is a big difference between claiming your beliefs are rational and that actually being true. In the end it always comes down to undefined "feelings" they have that something must be true.

Similarly, most atheists seem to rely on their own sense of reason revealing to their eyes the world as it truly is. This is why you so often get these people who are so certain that they have the clear truth, and that religious people are lying to themselves about the evidence. One depends on one's own sense of reason to determine whether one is being rational, and different people see evidence different ways for legitimate reasons. Zillah's idea of reason appears to be centred around atheism, a rather self-serving position.

Anyway, going off topic here.

Marcus.Aurelius

I sincerely hope that the atheists arguing against religious irrationality are not for a second suggesting that groups/governments that use religion as an excuse to butcher each other will not find a new excuse to continue butchering.

Some religions condone violence and murder, most do not. The moral principles of their ideology are rarely reflected in their actions.

May I point out the overwhelming possibility that religion has frankly very little to do with the state of the world, it's just a useful excuse.

If we get rid of religion, I suppose we still have skin colour as a clever reason to kill each other over. Mankind will always find excuses to commit atrocity. I am a pragmatic atheist, but do not for a single second consider it to be any kind of solution to the problems of the world, only a byproduct of some critical thinking, and a useful conclusion to the results. But that is all it can ever be, an individual perspective.

Dades

House wrote: »

If we get rid of religion

You can't just 'get rid' of it.

Religion is like a splinter, it has to work it's way out.

Marcus.Aurelius

Dades wrote: »

You can't just 'get rid' of it.

Religion is like a splinter, it has to work it's way out.

I was not saying that we could. I was saying "if" we did, it would not change things really. Our intrinsic nature will not change, we will always find reasons to bash each others heads in.

All the same, I take your point!

As for Zillah's comment on the expansion of science etc., I would agree that removing the influence of religious groups would help it to flourish. I'm a postdoc myself, and would hate any kind of belief system meddling with our conclusions or scope.

Dades

Indeed, we will always find reasons to discriminate, but possibly not ones that are exempt from the law. Religious discrimination without the protection it currently gets would suddenly be cultural or racial discrimination.

robindch

House wrote: »

Our intrinsic nature will not change, we will always find reasons to bash each others heads in.

That's bit like saying that anybody who doesn't break an arm is destined to break a leg instead.

Amongst other things, religion acts as a legitimizer of aggression. There are plenty of other ones, but there are few which are as potent. Remove religion, or at least its unhealthy input into group politics, and you remove one of the most effective means by which group-on-group aggression can be sold as a Good Thing.

stevejazzx

@Hurin

Evidence based on personal experience is discounted, otherwise all evidence is equally valid & invalid but we know from the practical application of modern science into numerous fields of human experience that this is, quite simply, not the case.

Atheistic evidence can personal but it can also be scientific, religion cannot claim the same. Scientific evidence may not be 'perfect' and in the grand scheme of things it cannot 'prove' anything. However it remains our best benchmark of reality.

We need a way of agreeing upon what reality is and science/physics is the best method there currently is of doing this.
If we start at a position where the only acknowledgment we give to science is that it is simply another way of looking at things then we are starting off in a highly flawed manner. Science gives us methods for interacting with and understanding reality. It allows us to put planes in the sky and people on the moon.

Therefore it demands more respect from the cognitive reasoning parts of our brains than something like a supposed essence, spirituality or gods, which have absolutely no evidence which is applicable in any field of human experience.

The only way of not accepting this is by trotting out some half assed philosophical banter about the nature of existence itself but I'm sure you won't do this.:rolleyes:

Marcus.Aurelius

robindch wrote: »

That's bit like saying that anybody who doesn't break an arm is destined to break a leg instead.

People out to steal property/land will still kill each other for it, the excuse may be the only thing that changes. Arguably, this may not be the case where people's religions specifically condone that behaviour and are the true root cause. But that is not true of most wars, where greed and power were the reality, religion (already an illusion) the illusion.

Amongst other things, religion acts as a legitimizer of aggression. There are plenty of other ones, but there are few which are as potent. Remove religion, or at least its unhealthy input into group politics, and you remove one of the most effective means by which group-on-group aggression can be sold as a Good Thing.

I agree with you on that, I was just pointing out that widespread acceptance of atheism will not mean less wars, just the same wars for different reasons.

robindch

House wrote: »

I was just pointing out that widespread acceptance of atheism will not mean less wars, just the same wars for different reasons.

Almost certainly false. Countries which have high rates of organic atheism are uniformly far, far more peaceful places, internally and externally, than countries which have high rates of forced atheism or high levels of religiosity.

There is no evidence at all that suggests that people will switch to an equivalently unpleasant legitimizer if religion is removed, and much to suggest that they will not. Though you will find a lot of religiously-inclined people (as well as religious apologists like Chesterton and Dostoevsky) who stick to the fallacious "well, if it's not religion, it'll be something else" notion.

CerebralCortex

House wrote: »

...I agree with you on that, I was just pointing out that widespread acceptance of atheism will not mean less wars, just the same wars for different reasons.

How can you be so sure? To become an atheist from being religious or a least to become non-religious implies a change of mind. Are you saying that it is human nature to be violent or war like? IMO I think becoming an atheist or being an atheist is about looking at human nature understanding it and to an extent changing it.

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

@Hurin

Evidence based on personal experience is discounted

It depends on what the field of inquiry is.

Atheistic evidence can personal but it can also be scientific, religion cannot claim the same.

Atheistic evidence cannot be scientific. Science does not provide enough information to conclusively demonstrate either atheism or theism.

We need a way of agreeing upon what reality is and science/physics is the best method there currently is of doing this.

I don't see why we need to agree. I am happy to be a theist and I'm happy to let other people be atheists. However it seems that some atheists are not happy to tolerate diversity.

stevejazzx

House wrote: »

I agree with you on that, I was just pointing out that widespread acceptance of atheism will not mean less wars, just the same wars for different reasons.

But have a look below, granted a lot politicis going on also but if religion was removed, man, these conflicts would need whole new reasons for continuation & justification. The simple fact is that we must try to remove it, it's influence is systemic in all the below conflicts.

Religion as direct casuation for war is now indisputable, if it were anything else we'd all be in exact agreement but becasue it's religion we have this massive psychological barrier in imagining it's non-existence. It's like we're firghtened that all the collective psychosis of those who depend on it would merge into some kind of devasting mess. Masses of people lost in some kind dystopian wilderness becasue their biggest invisble friend has been banished. That wouldn't happen people would get over it, move on and ultimately forget it.

---

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.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

Indeed, we will always find reasons to discriminate, but possibly not ones that are exempt from the law. Religious discrimination without the protection it currently gets would suddenly be cultural or racial discrimination.

Most historians seem to think that the enshrining of equality in the law, and perhaps the rule of law itself, is rooted in Christianity.

robindch wrote: »

That's bit like saying that anybody who doesn't break an arm is destined to break a leg instead.

I don't see how. In all of history, any time religion has been removed, some other concept has expanded into monstrous proportions in order to fill the violence gap. Mostly this has been some form of nationalism.

Amongst other things, religion acts as a legitimizer of aggression. There are plenty of other ones, but there are few which are as potent. Remove religion, or at least its unhealthy input into group politics, and you remove one of the most effective means by which group-on-group aggression can be sold as a Good Thing.

Religion acts as a legitimiser of aggression? What about the Golden Rule? Religion acts as a much needed de-legitimiser of aggression where none otherwise exists. The violent ways of nature legitimise aggression more effectively than any religion can.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

It depends on what the field of inquiry is.

Reality, things we should be happy to agree that actually exist.

Hurin wrote:

Atheistic evidence cannot be scientific. Science does not provide enough information to conclusively demonstrate either atheism or theism.

Yes but as my post points out it leans in the favour of atheism. A 14 billion year old universe does not reflect well on the chances of 5000 year old documents being accurate.

hurin wrote:

I don't see why we need to agree. I am happy to be a theist and I'm happy to let other people be atheists. However it seems that some atheists are not happy to tolerate diversity.

Diversity of what? People believing in magic to such an extent that it casues them to go war with people who believe in slighlty different magic?

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Almost certainly false. Countries which have high rates of organic atheism are uniformly far, far more peaceful places

These countries are uniformly prosperous places where people do not have to compete for vital resources. Externally, they are not peaceful. Japan has sent troops to Iraq. Sweden has one of Europe's biggest military industries.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

How can you be so sure? To become an atheist from being religious or a least to become non-religious implies a change of mind. Are you saying that it is human nature to be violent or war like? IMO I think becoming an atheist or being an atheist is about looking at human nature understanding it and to an extent changing it.

Yes, it is in human nature to be violent. Surely this is lesson #1 of history. Religion has been the main force in trying to deny humanity's violent nature, in the same way that it denies our sexual nature, greedy nature, etc. Surely becoming atheist is about accepting human nature rather than changing it.

stevejazzx wrote: »

But have a look below, granted a lot politicis going on also but if religion was removed, man, these conflicts would need whole new reasons for continuation & justification. The simple fact is that we must try to remove it, it's influence is systemic in all the below conflicts.

See my previous comments on this historically simplistic list. I mean look at some of the examples: Tibet, a religious conflict? (it even lists communists as a religion!)

Northern Ireland, would it need a new reason if there were no Catholics and Protestants? No, it already has an old reason, in that Ulster was settled by people from Britain 400 years ago and their descendants wish to maintain British rule there. The descendants of the previous inhabitants wish to eject British rule.

The list is self-refuting: "Indonesia, province of Ambon:……Christians, Muslims. After centuries of relative peace" ... during which time the people there were also Christians and Muslims. So the author of the list is hiding from us the change that caused conflict.

The list is a pile of rubbish: it lists any conflict where both parties are not uniformly atheists as a "religious war".

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

Reality, things we should be happy to agree that actually exist.

We don't need to agree that God exists.

Yes but as my post points out it leans in the favour of atheism. A 14 billion year old universe does not reflect well on the chances of 5000 year old documents being accurate.

You are being influenced by confirmation bias. Some people say that science favours atheism, some that it favours theism. Ever notice that most of those saying the former are atheists, and most of those saying the latter are theists?

Diversity of what? People believing in magic to such an extent that it casues them to go war with people who believe in slighlty different magic?

No. Warmongering should not be tolerated. But the fact is that most religious people in a tolerant society do not go to war any more than their atheist counterparts. I think that's a good way to keep it.

By your logic, if atheism - any atheism - was found to cause warfare, would we need to eliminate that too? Or would it have a special exemption on the grounds of being "the truth"?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Similarly, most atheists seem to rely on their own sense of reason revealing to their eyes the world as it truly is.

No doubt, I've encountered some very stupid reasons for someone to be an atheist, and in fact most of the Atheist converted to Christianity poster boys that are then are wheeled out as some kind of demonstration as to the flaws of atheism (I was raised and atheist but I always felt there was something wrong until I picked up the Bible blah blah blah) tend to have really bad reasons for being an atheist.

Húrin wrote: »

This is why you so often get these people who are so certain that they have the clear truth, and that religious people are lying to themselves about the evidence. One depends on one's own sense of reason to determine whether one is being rational, and different people see evidence different ways for legitimate reasons. Zillah's idea of reason appears to be centred around atheism, a rather self-serving position.

The standard of reasoning should be (in my biased reasoned opinion :pac:) whether the reasoning makes logical sense based on its own assumptions and rules. If it does then it can be wrong but it is still a belief based on rational deduction.

This is where I find any examples of religious rationality fall down in miserably because exceptions are introduced that break these rules in order for the persons religion to pass, exceptions that aren't made else where.

It is not simply a case of them being wrong. The "rational" arguments for religion break their own internal logic and cannot be considered rational.

Húrin wrote: »

Anyway, going off topic here.

Bringing it back to the topic I think atheism would matter if all it did was challenge the accepted ideas of religion.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

See my previous comments on this historically simplistic list. I mean look at some of the examples: Tibet, a religious conflict? (it even lists communists as a religion!)

What? It's saying who the conflict is between.
You don't expect that somehow religious wars could be conducted all over the world and yet somehow only involve religious people?

Hurin wrote:

Northern Ireland, would it need a new reason if there were no Catholics and Protestants? No, it already has an old reason, in that Ulster was settled by people from Britain 400 years ago and their descendants wish to maintain British rule there. The descendants of the previous inhabitants wish to eject British rule.

And religion brings further problems for them.
Look at the christainity forum, recently two of them were fighting over how important Confirmation was
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055574404&page=3
they were christian enough to resolve their little dispute however. But you imagine what could happen on a grand scale with this kind of thing.

Hurin wrote:

The list is self-refuting: "Indonesia, province of Ambon:……Christians, Muslims. After centuries of relative peace" ... during which time the people there were also Christians and Muslims. So the author of the list is hiding from us the change that caused conflict.

It's a list composed of where religion is either
a) sole aggrevating factor
b) an additional problem for the indigenous peoples

hurin wrote:

it lists any conflict where both parties are not uniformly atheists as a "religious war".

Yes it does, well spotted.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, it is in human nature to be violent. Surely this is lesson #1 of history. Religion has been the main force in trying to deny humanity's violent nature, in the same way that it denies our sexual nature, greedy nature, etc. Surely becoming atheist is about accepting human nature rather than changing it.

That is simply not true though. Religion has been the main force, the number one force, used to justify humanity's violent nature.

Humans have always tried to justify their own position by calling on authority from a deity, something that is considered unquestionable. This is the single greatest danger with religion, the belief that the authority actually exists and is unquestionable. This allows for manipulation of people on a massive scale and to horrific ends.

"God is on our side"

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Most historians seem to think that the enshrining of equality in the law, and perhaps the rule of law itself, is rooted in Christianity.

Most historians had beards and patches on their elbows but it doesn't change the fact that religion continues to be guilty of discrimination that would otherwise be illegal.

Húrin wrote: »

Religion acts as a legitimiser of aggression? What about the Golden Rule? Religion acts as a much needed de-legitimiser of aggression where none otherwise exists.

You're not seriously crediting religion with the "golden rule" are you?

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

We don't need to agree that God exists.

Evidently.

hurin wrote:

You are being influenced by confirmation bias. Some people say that science favours atheism, some that it favours theism. Ever notice that most of those saying the former are atheists, and most of those saying the latter are theists?

No, this is simply incorrect. I have explained why. Science uses it's theories and can materialistically impact upon the physical experiences of human beings. Religion uses it theories and can only materialistically impact on the psychological experience of human beings. It is clear to everyone however that psychological experience is not as valuable in terms of defining reality as pysical experience is, therefore science favours atheism.

Hurin wrote:

No. Warmongering should not be tolerated. But the fact is that most religious people in a tolerant society do not go to war any more than their atheist counterparts. I think that's a good way to keep it.

But they do. There are religous fundamnetliasts all over the world waiting to kill their religious counterparts.

hurin wrote:

By your logic, if atheism - any atheism - was found to cause warfare, would we need to eliminate that too? Or would it have a special exemption on the grounds of being "the truth"?

Any atheism? There's only one kind which is kind of the point - it's pretty hard for us fight amoung ourselves (get's ready for a boshed Stalinist/Marxist rebuttal). But if Atheism as an idea somehow casued the same degree of war as religion did then yes, we'd get rid of that too. It's all about the peaceful advancement of secularism and scientific endeavour.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Most historians seem to think that the enshrining of equality in the law, and perhaps the rule of law itself, is rooted in Christianity.

Eh... like Dades said about the Golden Rule you aren't seriously attributing the ideals behind "rule of law" to Christianity. You tend to use superlatives incorrectly so I'll ask for an elaboration of what you mean by "most historians"

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

That is simply not true though. Religion has been the main force, the number one force, used to justify humanity's violent nature.

I would say that the need to compete for resources has been the main justification for humanity's violent history. As an expert in natural selection you surely know that.

Humans have always tried to justify their own position by calling on authority from a deity, something that is considered unquestionable. This is the single greatest danger with religion, the belief that the authority actually exists and is unquestionable. This allows for manipulation of people on a massive scale and to horrific ends.

"God is on our side"

Fair point, but the problem is that most of the main religious figures of history, be it Jesus, Buddha, etc, have preached non-violence.

Dades wrote: »

Most historians had beards and patches on their elbows but it doesn't change the fact that religion continues to be guilty of discrimination that would otherwise be illegal.

So you really think that if no religion ever existed, then all unjust discrimination would definitely be illegal?

You're not seriously crediting religion with the "golden rule" are you?

Yes. All religions contain the Golden Rule. It doesn't matter here who first articulated it. Most of the main religious figures of history, be it Jesus, Buddha, etc, have preached it.

stevejazzx wrote: »

No, this is simply incorrect. I have explained why. Science uses it's theories and can materialistically impact upon the physical experiences of human beings. Religion uses it theories and can only materialistically impact on the psychological experience of human beings. It is clear to everyone however that psychological experience is not as valuable in terms of defining reality as pysical experience is, therefore science favours atheism.

That is such a flawed argument. No, religious and atheists alike have physical experiences. Atheism uses it theory and can only materialistically impact on the psychological experience of human beings. Therefore science does not favour either atheism or religion. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God, and thus favours agnosticism.

But they do. There are religous fundamnetliasts all over the world waiting to kill their religious counterparts.

I would stand by my statement that most religious people in a tolerant society do not go to war any more than their atheist counterparts.

Any atheism? There's only one kind which is kind of the point - it's pretty hard for us fight amoung ourselves

Atheism is very diverse. There is nothing to unify atheists other than the disbelief in Gods. Rationalism, humanism and science etc, unify many western atheists but that is not all atheists. That is before we even get into political divisions. I think that even in the west, the divide between humanists and naturalist atheists is important.

But if Atheism as an idea somehow casued the same degree of war as religion did then yes, we'd get rid of that too. It's all about the peaceful advancement of secularism and scientific endeavour.

What is scientific endeavour caused war? This whole discussion reminds me of a facetious statement that the horror of chemical weapons meant that we should ban chemistry. Just because there are a few religious maniacs around, does not mean that the whole thing needs to be exterminated.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I would say that the need to compete for resources has been the main justification for humanity's violent history. As an expert in natural selection you surely know that.

No, that may have been the actually reason the wars are fought, but not the justification.

To get other people to fight for you people have always used religion. Religion is the great manipulator. You are not fighting for me, you are fighting for God.

If you convince people you speak for God you can get them to do pretty much anything, including go to war for you.

Húrin wrote: »

Fair point, but the problem is that most of the main religious figures of history, be it Jesus, Buddha, etc, have preached non-violence.

It is debatable whether Jesus preached non-violence. That is certainly the modern trendy interpretation of what he preached but 2000 years of Christian wars and violence would call the validity of that interpretation into question.

Christianity has always had the concept of a "just war", and Christians have used passages from the Bible to support that idea.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

No, that may have been the actually reason the wars are fought, but not the justification.

To get other people to fight for you people have always used religion. Religion is the great manipulator. You are not fighting for me, you are fighting for God.

If you convince people you speak for God you can get them to do pretty much anything, including go to war for you.

Ah yes I see. You are right here. Though the same demagogues who used religion as a manipulator also relied on illiteracy. So that the number of people who objected on the grounds that Jesus (or whoever) would not condone their war would be kept to a minimum.

It is debatable whether Jesus preached non-violence. That is certainly the modern trendy interpretation of what he preached but 2000 years of Christian wars and violence would call the validity of that interpretation into question.

All you need to debate the message of Jesus is the Gospels, not subsequent history.

Christianity has always had the concept of a "just war", and Christians have used passages from the Bible to support that idea.

Not always. Only since St Augustine. If you actually look at his doctrine, few if any of the subsequent "Christian wars" fulfilled the criteria.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

I would say that the need to compete for resources has been the main

That is such a flawed argument. No, religious and atheists alike have physical experiences. Atheism uses it theory and can only materialistically impact on the psychological experience of human beings. Therefore science does not favour either atheism or religion. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God, and thus favours agnosticism.

Ok. Let's try again if we use sicences rules and laws in our daily experience (phscially) then that is scienece impacting on us in a real way. Religion does not do this, it merely impacts on us psychologically although you may want to claim that if a relgious person punches me then that then that is physical:pac:
If something cannot be defined in real terms, if it cannot be seen, touched or materialised in some way then that thing gets less acknowledgement, in terms of how we assimilate what is physically real and can therefore impact on human experience in that way.

hurin wrote:

I would stand by my statement that most religious people in a tolerant society do not go to war any more than their atheist counterparts.

Ok then tell me what constitutes a tolerant society for fundmentalists?

hurin wrote:

Atheism is very diverse. There is nothing to unify atheists other than the disbelief in Gods. Rationalism, humanism and science etc, unify many western atheists but that is not all atheists. That is before we even get into political divisions. I think that even in the west, the divide between humanists and naturalist atheists is important.

Important how?
How do envisage wars breaking out between us as differing atheistic 'groups' becasue of our one shared ideological principal that there is no such thing as 'gods'.

hurin wrote:

What is scientific endeavour caused war?

Where, what, when, who said this please?????

hurin wrote:

This whole discussion reminds me of a facetious statement that the horror of chemical weapons meant that we should ban chemistry. Just because there are a few religious maniacs around, does not mean that the whole thing needsto be exterminated.

A few?
A few?

Ok the Ahmadinejad of Iran has demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map. Radicals of Islamm are also demanding that western culture be 'brought to it's knees'.
Christian fundamentalists demand that fairytales be thought in school and that it is presented as science (this is 2009 and they want to talk about the possibility of dinosaurs living 5000 years ago) and believed that Bush had the right to 'nuke' anyone he wanted - and indeed are all convinced that Judgement day is upon us see themsleves as warriors for christ. There are whole divisions of them who want the world to end becasue the world, as they see it, is so corrupted.
The sub branches of these religions are willing to destory each other with suicide bombs. New breakaway religious sects commonly push for group suicide. Others are willing to kill young girls who have abortions or even pre marital sex. There is a world of nutcases out there, millions of them, they represent all the extremes of religion, not peaceful religion (for which I accept exists in mass also) but peaceful religion preserves the shell for extremism.

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok. Let's try again if we use sicences rules and laws in our daily experience (phscially) then that is scienece impacting on us in a real way. Religion does not do this, it merely impacts on us psychologically although you may want to claim that if a religious person punches me then that then that is physical

Religious people (despite what people here think I'm not one) inform me that their faith is very real to them. I can see myself that it has a strong impact on the course of their lives.

If something cannot be defined in real terms, if it cannot be seen, touched or materialised in some way that thing gets less acknowledgement, in terms of how we assimilate what is physically real and can impact on human experience.

Actually, what happens to us, psychologically, is extremely important. That's why many people who live the same physical reality and share many experiences can have different views on things.

Ok then tell me what constitutes a tolerant society for fundmentalists?

I have not mentioned fundamentalists. What you are trying to do to me is to put words in my mouth so you can refute a straw man. Besides, the characterisation of all fundamentalists as violent lunatics is so unfair. It demonstrates how unquestioning you are of media terminology. For instance, the Amish Mennonites of America are definitely fundamentalists, but they are not violent, extremist, nor do they force their views on people who don't agree with them.

I'm talking about a tolerant secular society. Not an atheist society as most here are clamouring for, but a secular one. Where people do not harrass others on the grounds of evil or moral decay that their religious beliefs, or lack of them, might cause.

Important how?
How do envisage wars breaking out between us as differing atheistic 'groups' becasue of our one shared ideological principal that there is no such thing as 'gods'.

It's important because it causes a lot of very interesting reading!

I don't envisage wars taking place between atheist groups due to doctrine, any more than I envisage wars taking place between religions due to doctrine. However, doctrines whether secular or religious can easily be used as an ostensible reason for wars.

But this is nonsense. You know that Johnny Catholic down the road is not going to firebomb your house one of these days because you're an atheist. Nor will you do some similar thing. This stereotyping of all religious people as loose cannons is not realistic, it is your wishful thinking.

Where, what, when, who said this please?????

You mentioned scientific endeavour. I highlighted that science and technology has given us both benign and deadly inventions.

A few?
A few?
....There is a world of nutcases out there, millions of them, they represent all the extremes of religion, not peaceful religion (for which I accept exists in mass also) but peaceful religion preserves the shell for extremism.

These are a tiny percentage of the religious people of the world. However, their dramatics make the media. If you take the time to step away from YouTube and visit some churches you'll find just how boring and normal the people there are.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

Religious people (despite what people here think I'm not one) inform me that their faith is very real to them. I can see myself that it has a strong impact on the course of their lives.

Grand. I am not arguing that.

hurin wrote:

Actually, what happens to us, psychologically, is extremely important. That's why many people who live the same physical reality and share many experiences can have different views on things.

Ok but that is not the argument.
The argument whether science favours a religious or athesitic outlook.
You say niether. I say atheism. I list how we can see sicence in action in our daily lives, in, and this is the ultra important bit (that religion cannot do), a quantifiable measuable and physical manner.

hurin wrote:

I have not mentioned fundamentalists. What you are trying to do to me is to put words in my mouth so you can refute a straw man.

I am pointing out, that in this world there is no such thing as tolerance between conflicting religions. Even peaceful praticsing followers of the differing religions vocalise their incompatibility and even impossibility of co-existence.

hurin wrote:

I'm talking about a tolerant secular society. Not an atheist society as most here are clamouring for, but a secular one. Where people do not harrass others on the grounds of evil or moral decay that their religious beliefs, or lack of them, might cause.

I agree, I couldn't care if everyone was atheist or not.
But obviously we are not achieving this currently.

hurin wrote:

It's important because it causes a lot of very interesting reading!

I don't envisage wars taking place between atheist groups due to doctrine, any more than I envisage wars taking place between religions due to doctrine. However, doctrines whether secular or religious can easily be used as an ostensible reason for wars.

WE DON'T HAVE DOCTRINE!!JEESH.

hurin wrote:

But this is nonsense. You know that Johnny Catholic down the road is not going to firebomb your house one of these days because you're an atheist.

I imagine it's not so hard to imagine for someone in a christian fundamentalist part of the United States.

hurin wrote:

Nor will you do some similar thing. This stereotyping of all religious people as loose cannons is not realistic, it is your wishful thinking.

ME IN MY LAST POST, come on, look- seriously though!!!! wrote:

not peaceful religion (for which I accept exists in mass also)

hurin wrote:

You mentioned scientific endeavour. I highlighted that science and technology has given us both benign and deadly inventions.

OK. I am lost at what this is in relation to. If we're having a debate let's make an effort.

hurin wrote:

These are a tiny percentage of the religious people of the world.

Tiny? Come on if thier actions can cause widespread suffering and even death then their exact numbers are somewhat irrelevant at this point.

hurin wrote:

However, their dramatics make the media. If you take the time to step from YouTube

Dramatics = Religous fundamentalism?
BTW I do not get your youtube comment. Why does it appear to you that I am watching a lot of you tube?

hurin wrote:

and visit some churches you'll find just how boring and normal the people there are.

That's great and the point being? You talk about introducing straw men. Wow. Every post you make is essentially a minor report on nice religion and your general bafflement at why us nasty atheists are trying to shoot it down. You're the starw man king.

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok but that is not the argument.
The argument whether science favours a religious or athesitic outlook.
You say niether. I say atheism. I list how we can see science in action in our daily lives, in, and this is the ultra important bit (that religion cannot do), a quantifiable measuable and physical manner.

True, but we don't see atheism acting in our lives in a quantifiable, measruable and physical manner. So it's in the same position as religion in terms of being favoured by science.

I am pointing out, that in this world there is no such thing as tolerance between conflicting religions. Even peaceful praticsing followers of the differing religions vocalise their incompatibility and even impossibility of co-existence.

That's not true at all. Most leaders of organised religions these days seem to spend most of their time visiting and shaking the hands of other religious leaders. Most religious people get on just fine with those who are not in their group.

I agree, I couldn't care if everyone was atheist or not.
But obviously we are not achieving this currently.

So you don't think that the existence of religious belief is a problem?

WE DON'T HAVE DOCTRINE!!JEESH.

Why is it always those who emphasise their rationality who get so angry? Don't take the word doctrine too seriously. Use "opinion" or some such word and the argument still stands. You're trying to get away from my point on a technicality:

I don't envisage wars taking place between atheist groups due to differences in their opinions, any more than I envisage wars taking place between religions due to doctrine. However, opinions whether secular or religious can easily be used as an ostensible reason for wars.

I imagine it's not so hard to imagine for someone in a christian fundamentalist part of the United States.

That is neither yours nor my reality. Why bring it up? Why is it any more valid than the fact that Johnny Catholic down the road is not going to firebomb your house one of these days because you're an atheist.

OK. I am lost at what this is in relation to. If we're having a debate let's make an effort.

stevejazzx wrote: »

But if Atheism as an idea somehow casued the same degree of war as religion did then yes, we'd get rid of that too. It's all about the peaceful advancement of secularism and scientific endeavour.

I pointed out that scientific endeavour has been an aid to war as well as peace.

Tiny? Come on if thier actions can cause widespread suffering and even death then their exact numbers are somewhat irrelevant at this point.

Their exact numbers are important if you're making false claims that they exist in similar numbers to peaceful religious folk.

Dramatics = Religous fundamentalism?
BTW I do not get your youtube comment. Why does it appear to you that I am watching a lot of you tube?

Because you are judging religion by its violent members.

That's great and the point being? You talk about introducing straw men. Wow. Every post you make is essentially a minor report on nice religion and your general bafflement at why us nasty atheists are trying to shoot it down.

The point is that it might give you a more realistic picture of what religious communities are like than the dramatic stories told in the media. I don't think you understand what a straw man is.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

True, but we don't see atheism acting in our lives in a quantifiable, measruable and physical manner. So it's in the same position as religion in terms of being favoured by science.

Straw man. Plus that is clearly not the case. Religions claim truths about the nature of the universe that science hasn't yet and may not discover, atheism does not or cannot make such claims.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

The point is that it might give you a more realistic picture of what religious communities are like than the dramatic stories told in the media. I don't think you understand what a straw man is.

Yeah..ok. Read my post again. In particular the final section. It explains not only how you keep propogating these straw men but also gives a generalised sentence explainging the process. Only an obscured, ill informed reading of my last paragraph could bring you to that conclusion.


Directly after a post where I say that I accept there are relgious peope leaving in peace in mass
->you say:

hurin wrote:

This stereotyping of all religious people as loose cannons is not realistic, it is your wishful thinking.

By saying this you are fighting against someone who you have created. It is not my wishful thinking that relgious people are all loose cannons. That is simply preposturous, I have never said anything like that. In fact I go to great pains to reference that I do understand that there many peaceful nice religious people in the world. It's ridiculous that you think someone is misrepresenting your argument. Wow. Review the thread, read it properly. then review again. You seem like a bright fellow, I'm sure it will fal into place eventually.

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

Directly after a post where I say that I accept there are relgious peope leaving in peace in mass

But you persist in implying that maniacs exist in similar numbers, which is still very unfair.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Religious people (despite what people here think I'm not one)

Wait, what?

Would you mind, please, for the record, to state in one or two paragraphs what your religious/spiritual position is? Cos I'm really confused now.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Wait, what?

Would you mind, please, for the record, to state in one or two paragraphs what your religious/spiritual position is? Cos I'm really confused now.

I believe that there is probably a God of some kind. I have an interest in religions and especially Christianity. Having read some of its scriptures I think that it is more likely to be true than most of the others. However I still have some problems with it, but not as many problems as I have with naturalism, humanism and the other popular versions of atheism.

Due to being raised in a secular culture, I would find it very difficult to actually become a Christian, but those Christians I do know seem to be so happy about it. It is appealing in this way despite being far out of my cultural comfort zone.

On this forum I don't really have anything to evangelise to I mainly like to refute what I see as the unwarranted certainty and self-righteousness of many of the posters. I'm not neutral though. I would be more on the Christian side of debates than on yours.

Sam Vimes

Wading into this debate a bit late but:

Atheism is important if there is no God because it's counter productive to spend your time praying to someone who isn't there.

On the other hand, religion is important if there is a god that will actually answer your prayers.

So really it's impossible to definitively answer that question until we know for sure who's right. But I'll take a whack anyway

If he exists, God's will is notorious unreliable. You cannot rely on prayer to get something done. That is an undeniable fact. Therefore it's better to live your life on the assumption that there is no one looking out for you above because, even if there is, it has been shown that you don't always get what you want just because you ask God for it.

What happens to your immortal soul is a separate matter entirely...

mrDerek

Húrin wrote: »

Does athiesm matter?

no

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

But you persist in implying that maniacs exist in similar numbers, which is still very unfair.

:rolleyes:

Huh?

Let's say there are 5 out of the 6 billion people in the world are 'religious'. For your ridiculous claim to be correct you're now going to have to produce a post which shows that I have stated that 2.5 billion people in the world are religious fanatics. I said 'millions'. You say that's half. Intersting...you're grasping at straw men.

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

Let's say there are 5 out of the 6 billion people in the world are 'religious'. For your ridiculous claim to be correct you're now going to have to produce a post which shows that I have stated that 2.5 billion people in the world are religious fanatics. I said 'millions'. You say that's half. Intersting...you're grasping at straw men.

The fact that you brought up "fundamentalist" religious people in post #78 in a discussion that is about the peaceful majority shows that you are grasping at straw men.

robindch

Lads, that's three of yiz shouting "Straw men" at each other.

It's Friday evening -- try to keep your heads on!

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

The fact that you brought up "fundamentalist" religious people in post #78 in a discussion that is about the peaceful majority shows that you are grasping at straw men.

Note to slef: Do not bring up fundamentalist religion in post 78. That's bad, I don't know why nor does Hurin but it just is apparently. BTW I thought the discussion was: Does atheism matter?

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Lads, that's three of yiz shouting "Straw men" at each other.

It's Friday evening -- try to keep your heads on!

I think they need the Wizard for that one !

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Lads, that's three of yiz shouting "Straw men" at each other.

It's Friday evening -- try to keep your heads on!

He started it mister:pac:

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

Note to slef: Do not bring up fundamentalist religion in post 78. That's bad, I don't know why nor does Hurin but it just is apparently. BTW I thought the discussion was: Does atheism matter?

Stop taking ...[inappropriate language deleted]...

.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wading into this debate a bit late but:

Atheism is important if there is no God because it's counter productive to spend your time praying to someone who isn't there.

On the other hand, religion is important if there is a god that will actually answer your prayers.

I'm thinking "important" more in the historical sense than a personal sense.

lordsippa

OK I'm going to ignore the ridiculous arguments that came before (I say ridiculous because they're counter productive and ignore the original ethos of the question I think).

How Atheism can be important is by allowing us, our societies, and our species (possibly) to advance into something new. We can drop these preset notions of where we want to go, of what we want, of how we envision a "utopia".

Perhaps I should clarify why I would consider myself an atheist. I don't believe in God or other superstitions. Any other views may have grown for atheism but that's the extent of what atheism means for me - I don't believe in spirits and ghosts. So why would I think that this will change society?

Well... Religions are traditionalist institutions. Far more important than splinter groups decreeing war on one and all, these institutions maintain ancient societal practices without question. Now, some of these practices might be fine and dandy, but to just outright accept them is unacceptable when we want to advance ourselves.

We have to be willing to face change, to face suffering (by which I'd envision a loss of certain modern comforts rather than a collapse of civilisation through war or whatever), and to have to work to come out on top. We already do face most of these things but hopefully in the future we will realise that we have nothing else to blame but ourselves when things mess up. Responsibility tends to breed higher standards, so let's hope that this happens.

As an aside, the link between atheism and science currently is due to the demands of scientific legitimacy. People trying to practice "legitimate" scienctific pursuits are used to notions of fallibility in theories. There are many religious scientists (and many atheistic obviously) who would consider their beliefs to not be legitimate in the sense that their research would be - and they will often make this distinction. In short, the scientific method does not allow for leaps of faith. Scientists themselves are a little different...

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Lads, that's three of yiz shouting "Straw men" at each other.

It's Friday evening -- try to keep your heads on!

I knew atheists had a God - its a Straw Man

Húrin

lordsippa wrote: »

So why would I think that this will change society?

Well... Religions are traditionalist institutions. Far more important than splinter groups decreeing war on one and all, these institutions maintain ancient societal practices without question. Now, some of these practices might be fine and dandy, but to just outright accept them is unacceptable when we want to advance ourselves.

This a problem with seeing all religion as the same. Christianity was radical when it was new. A few Biblical churches try to keep this radicalism, rather than succumb to traditionalism.

Capitalism is the big societal practice in the world today. Yet I don't think that atheism will change that. In fact I don't believe that atheism necessitates questioning our culture at all. Most atheists don't seem to do this at all.

CDfm

Atheism & Religion is an abstract argument for most people. Being an atheist doesnt make a person a radical unless you are a politician when its about as dramatic in a wearing jeans or admitting to playing air guitar or going to Slane kind of way.

CDfm

lordsippa wrote: »

As an aside, the link between atheism and science currently is due to the demands of scientific legitimacy. People trying to practice "legitimate" scienctific pursuits are used to notions of fallibility in theories. There are many religious scientists (and many atheistic obviously) who would consider their beliefs to not be legitimate in the sense that their research would be - and they will often make this distinction. In short, the scientific method does not allow for leaps of faith. Scientists themselves are a little different...

Don't you think that the whole I demand scientific proof is a bit arrogant and the trust me Im a scientist is a bit overdone.